PRIVATE BUSINESS

HBOS Group Reorganisation Bill

Read a Second time, and committed.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read. To be read a Second time on Tuesday 1 March.

Oral Answers to Questions

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

NHS Trust Staff

Simon Hughes: What percentage of staff employed by NHS trusts in England on 1 January, or the latest date for which figures are available, were (a) directly employed and (b) agency staff.

John Hutton: The Department does not collect specific information on the numbers of NHS staff who are directly employed or hired through agencies. In 2003–04, the estimated agency spend as a proportion of the total NHS pay bill was 5.4 per cent.—a reduction of almost 7 per cent. from the previous year.

Simon Hughes: Do Ministers accept that under the Labour Government there appears to have been an increase of approximately 50 per cent. in the spend on the health service—which, of course, is welcome—but a 300 per cent. increase in the number of agency staff employed by the NHS in England? Will Ministers say categorically that it is always better where possible to have directly employed rather than agency staff? What will they do to keep driving the numbers of agency staff down and fully employed staff up? That is what patients want, and what all the other workers in the NHS prefer.

John Hutton: The answer to the specific question is yes, of course it is. We are making significant progress in reducing the spend on agency staff, and I referred to the overall figures for the NHS pay bill in my answer. The   hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that last year in London, where spending on agency staff accounts for about 35 per cent. of the total spend across the NHS, there was a significant fall of about 14 per cent. in the use by the NHS of nurse agency staff. That was partly driven by the excellent work of the South West London strategic health authority, but also by a better and more intelligent use of the framework agreements that we negotiated through the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency with the nursing recruitment agencies themselves. I am quite confident that we shall continue to see significant reductions in the overall spend on nursing agency staff.

Patrick Hall: My right hon. Friend will know that Bedford general hospital featured on "Panorama" last Sunday. The key message that came across was the high quality and strong morale of the whole staff team of both directly employed and agency staff. Will he join me in welcoming and celebrating their professionalism, dedication and commitment to solving problems, which has reduced waiting times, delivered high-quality services to patients and made the best use of the sustained increase in resources that the NHS has received?

John Hutton: I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the outstanding work of NHS staff in Bedford and many other parts of the country who are doing a brilliant job in improving the quality of care, reducing the time that patients wait and improving the overall patient experience. The right way to make sure that we continue to do so is to bring the investment in and not introduce charges for hospital operations.

Peter Lilley: Will the Minister confirm that that huge reliance on agency staff at immense cost is proof that ultimately one cannot buck the market? Attempts to staff our hospitals with nurses with different pay and conditions mean that we cannot balance demand and supply domestically. We have to import 15,000 nurses a year because we are losing 8,000 British-trained nurses overseas, and nearly one third of nurses with British nurse training go elsewhere. Ultimately, to achieve a balanced domestic supply we must pay a proper rate for our nurses rather than wasting money in this way.

John Hutton: I agree strongly that we need to pay nurses more and give them a better rate of pay. That is precisely what we are doing with "Agenda for Change", which has been negotiated with nurses and the Royal College of Nursing in particular. It gives us an opportunity to make significant progress in this important area—something that was quite invisible when the right hon. Gentleman's party was in charge of the national health service.

Lawrie Quinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a key part of work in the NHS is teamwork and the dedication of directly employed staff on a daily basis? He will know of recent concerns about Whitby hospital in my constituency, so I wonder whether he can help me to facilitate a meeting with the strategic health authority and the primary care trust to make sure that all the key partners who deliver an excellent service for the people of Whitby and the surrounding district can continue to do so in future? Will he commend those staff and congratulate them on delivering PCT services in one of the largest community hospitals in England?

John Hutton: Yes, the NHS staff in my hon. Friend's constituency are doing an excellent job, and I pay tribute to their commitment and professionalism. I shall certainly help facilitate the meeting that he asked for. That will not be a problem. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend's outstanding support for the national health service in his constituency.

John Baron: The Government are well aware that many agencies recruit NHS staff from overseas countries. The recent Save the Children study accused the UK of contributing to the collapse of health systems in many poor countries, and a British Medical Association statement criticised the UK's shameful record of exploitation in taking nurses from developing countries—an issue that the Opposition have raised many times. Given this new evidence, if the Minister accepts that poor countries need their nurses even more than we do, why will the Government not ban the NHS from using recruitment agencies that have not signed up to their own code of practice?

John Hutton: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the matter a number of times, but he always fails to point out that the UK leads the world in the ethical recruitment of medical staff. The code of practice that we have formulated and promulgated, which has now, I am glad to say, been extended to the independent health care sector, is held up as a model of good practice by the World Health Organisation. We do not recruit in developing nations in Africa. On the point that we should support those countries with the cost of training health care staff, I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that in the past five years the Department for International Development has provided more than £500 million worth of aid and development costs for African countries to help them train the nurses and doctors that they need for the future.

Helen Jones: Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall), will the Minister join me in congratulating the staff—both agency and directly employed—at Warrington hospital on the magnificent way in which they worked during and after the fire at the hospital just over a week ago? Will he show his appreciation in a tangible way by considering what can be done to help the hospital through this difficult time, and ensure that it is not penalised for missing targets where that failure results purely from the fire at the hospital?

John Hutton: I shall look at the last point raised by my hon. Friend. There was a tragedy at the hospital, which she has been working closely with her constituents to resolve, and I appreciate the work that she has done. It is right to say that it is not just NHS staff who do an outstanding job for NHS patients. Many agency nurses and agency staff do a brilliant job as well, and it would be wrong to give the impression that that was not the case. They are dedicated to their patients and they do a good job for the NHS.

Continuing Care Report

Sandra Gidley: If he will make a statement on the Government's response to the Parliamentary Health Ombudsman's report on continuing care.

Stephen Ladyman: The written ministerial statement that was made to the House on 9 December 2004 outlined our plans to develop a national framework for fully funded continuing care. The framework will improve consistency and ease of understanding and will help to ensure that users' and carers' reasonable expectations are being met.

Sandra Gidley: I thank the Minister for that explanation. There have been 4,000 complaints to the ombudsman since the February 2003 report, which recommended the establishment of clear national minimum eligibility criteria that are understandable to health professionals, carers and patients. It also stated that the local criteria are over-assessed and poorly applied. Why has it taken so long to draw up national minimum standards, and what will the Minister do to make sure that those are properly and transparently applied?

Stephen Ladyman: We started off with 96 different sets of criteria. We reduced those to 28, which we ensured were legally reliable and properly administered before we started the review. The review of the outstanding cases is complete in all but one strategic health authority area, and even that one will be finished shortly, so we have made substantial improvements. In developing the national framework, we must now make sure that we go down to one single framework that is easy for patients and carers to understand and can be reliably implemented by professionals. By establishing best practice, that is exactly what we shall do.

David Hinchliffe: On the issue of long-term care, under the previous Administration there was a significant increase in the number of elderly people institutionalised in private care and nursing homes, and this Government have a proud record of moving in the opposite direction. Will the forthcoming Green Paper possibly set targets for a further reduction? Can my hon. Friend set out roughly how soon we will have the Green Paper and tell us what positive policies it will include on developing alternatives to the institutional care sector inherited from the previous Administration?

Stephen Ladyman: First, I can promise my hon. Friend that the Green Paper will be available shortly. Of course, as a Green Paper, it will not contain specific targets, but I promise him that it will reaffirm the direction of travel—the direction that older people themselves tell us that they want us to take. They want to stay in their own homes for as long as possible. If they cannot do so, they want to move to accommodation where they can maintain their independence. They do not want to be shuffled off into residential care, which is the policy of the Opposition parties.

Stephen Dorrell: Can the Minister confirm that the continuing uncertainty and confusion about entitlement to residential care date back to the Coughlan judgment, which was handed down almost six years ago? Is this not a sorry tale of incompetence and bungling by the Government, compounded by the fact that the Minister promised that, by March 2004, all those who had overpaid their charges would receive back their overpayments? How many of those people are still waiting for overpayments that were declared illegal six years ago?

Stephen Ladyman: I will not confirm that it goes back to the Coughlan judgment. It goes back to when the previous Government ordered 96 health authorities to write separate sets of eligibility criteria. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know that; I rather suspect that he was Secretary of State at the time when it was ordered. The fact is that the ombudsman asked us to go back in our review to 1996 precisely because the confusion arose from the point at which the criteria were issued. We are cleaning up the Conservative party's mess, and we are doing so at great expense to the taxpayer.

Simon Burns: May I tell the Minister that he is living in cloud cuckoo land? This is a miserable episode for the Department of Health. His own deadlines for sorting out the problem have been missed eight times, and the ombudsman has accused the Government of bungling the cases, criticised the Department for issuing unreliable information to her about its review and found that, in half the reviewed cases that she has looked at, the reviews have not been properly carried out. Can the Minister tell us when there will be completion for all the people who have complained? Can he also tell us more about the compensation? Will it be compensation solely for the money that people inadvertently and wrongly had to pay? What will happen to people who had to sell their homes, when it now turns out that there was no reason whatever for doing so?

Stephen Ladyman: Let me deal with that last point first. Since 2001, we have allowed all local authorities to defer payments, so property needs to be sold only after people's death. That is available in every part of this country. It is a policy that means that people do not have to sell their homes, and it would be swept away by the policies of both the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats if they were implemented. The simple fact is that we have a serious and complex problem to clean up. We had to go from 96 sets of eligibility criteria to 28 sets, and we had to ensure that people could understand them. All the cases in which people requested their review by the March deadline have now been completed. Other cases are coming in continuously, and we are paying compensation on the basis that, where the national health service received unjust enrichment, we are paying the money back to people. We are paying £180 million to clean up a mess left by the hon. Gentleman's Government.

Health Provision (Wales)

Huw Irranca-Davies: What discussions he has had with the new Minister for Health and Social Services in the National Assembly for Wales Government on strategic approaches to health provision in England and Wales.

Rosie Winterton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not yet met the new Minister for Health and Social Services in the National Assembly for Wales, but he regularly meets his fellow UK Health Ministers to discuss matters of common interest.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I seek the indulgence of the House to pay tribute to the staff in acute care and ambulance services at Morriston hospital, Swansea, who saved my father's life over the Christmas period. I also pay tribute to the work carried out in the national health service throughout the country.
	I am sure that the Minister agrees that one of the benefits of devolution is that we can learn lessons from both sides of Offa's dyke, and the Assembly should be applauded for its work on primary care, healthy living initiatives and so on. When the Minister meets Dr. Brian Gibbons, the new Health and Social Services Minister, will she take the opportunity to bolster his good work on waiting times by discussing the excellent initiatives in England such as targeted waiting times and mobile units?
	Does she think that some matters will be off the record in those discussions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is three supplementaries; we will not go into a fourth.

Rosie Winterton: I am sure that the staff will appreciate my hon. Friend's comments, because NHS staff are too often not thanked for their work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will meet the Health and Social Services Minister in the Welsh Assembly Government, and I am sure that he will be happy to discuss how we have made dramatic improvements on waiting lists, which is a problem that we inherited, by setting clear national targets and adopting innovative approaches such as mobile units. I am also sure that he will be happy to discuss improvements to public health in Wales.
	My hon. Friend asked which matters will not be on the agenda. The introduction of patient charges in the NHS, taking £1.2 billion away from the NHS and the dreaded patient passport will certainly not be on the agenda, because, unlike the Conservative party, this party believes in the NHS being free at the point of need.

Chris Grayling: While the Minister is discussing public health, will she undertake an urgent review of strategy for health protection and food safety with the devolved Administration in Wales and its counterpart in Scotland in the light of this week's contamination of the food chain? In particular, will she undertake to review the role of the Food Standards Agency, given the slow and chaotic way in which it has responded to the crisis?

Rosie Winterton: The most important point is ensuring maximum protection for the public, and we expect the FSA to do just that. We will examine the episode to see what lessons can be learned, but we will take no lessons from the Conservative party, which brought us bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The Conservative plans in the James review include cutting the Meat Hygiene Service, which was set up to protect the public.

Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not acceptable for patients from Wales who are seeing the same consultant as patients from England at the same hospital to wait twice as long to obtain similar treatment? Will she discuss that issue as a matter of urgency with the new Minister in the National Assembly for Wales and impress upon him the great success of the NHS in England in reducing waiting times?

Rosie Winterton: I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that those matters are obviously for the Assembly, and, if he feels it necessary, I am sure that he will make those points to Assembly Ministers. In March, guidance will be published on payments between Welsh and English trusts and on waiting times.

Marion Roe: How can the Minister possibly believe that the people of Wales are receiving value for money when, despite a 31 per cent. increase in funding between 2000 and 2003, the number of finished consultant episodes actually declined by 1 per cent. in that time?

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Lady knows that the matters that she raises are for the Welsh Assembly to determine. The Conservative party did not support devolution to Wales. We do, and those matters are for the Welsh Assembly.

Waiting Times (Diagnostics)

Tom Brake: What his Department's policy is on reducing waiting times for diagnostics.

John Reid: By 2008, the maximum time from GP referral to the start of treatment will be down to just 18 weeks. That includes diagnostic procedures.
	To that end, I announced last week an increase of 2.75 million extra scans and diagnostic procedures by 2008, all of which will be delivered to patients in the national health service free of charge at the point of need.

Tom Brake: On the latter point, the Secretary of State knows of the grave concerns about the previous contract for MRI scans, especially the problems of hidden costs, staff leaving the NHS, tests having to be repeated and wrong diagnosis. Why is he confident that the same problems will not occur under the new contract?

John Reid: Because there is not a shred of evidence to show that there were undue problems with the first contract. Twenty-five thousand treatments have been carried out under that contract and patient satisfaction is 96 per cent., which is comparable with anything that we have ever done in the NHS. Of course, when one embarks on such an undertaking, there are teething problems. However, we should be careful to ensure that we are on the side not only of the health care providers in the NHS but of the patient. I know that the Liberals always put the interest of the patient second to that of the producer, but the 600,000 extra scans that we procured for NHS patients mean that, for example, in Newham hospital, which I visited last week, people are now waiting less than one week. That is a huge improvement for patients. It is one of the reasons why, when purchasing another 2.4 million scans, I was willing not only to extend the number of NHS scans by 1.4 million but to procure another 1 million from the independent sector, in the knowledge that they would all be delivered free—with no charges, unlike what would happen under a Conservative Government—to all patients in the NHS.

David Taylor: The constituency of North-West Leicestershire is mainly served by the University Hospitals of Leicester Trust—one of the largest in the country—which sees 2,500 people a day as new or follow-up out-patients. It had a disappointing record until recently. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State come with me to the hospital to see how the position has been significantly transformed? All waiting list targets have been fulfilled six months in advance of the Government's requirements, all suspected cancer patients are seen in 14 days, and the management and staff are among the finest in the country. Will he accompany me to inspect what has been done?

John Reid: I shall certainly try to arrange that in my schedule, but in any case I congratulate the staff not only in the hospital that my hon. Friend mentioned but throughout the country, who have matched the investment that the taxpayer has been prepared to invest in the NHS with reform and finding new ways of working so that output is greater, whatever the level of investment. The speed with which people can see GPs or be referred from GPs to consultants is light years ahead of what it was under the Conservative Government. However, I accept that, when more people are going through far more quickly, there is a potential bottleneck at the diagnostic level. That is why I am not only rapidly expanding the number of NHS scans, tests and diagnostic treatments but procuring from the independent sector. I stress to all hon. Members my pledge that, under this Government, charges will not be introduced for basic operations or basic treatments on the diagnostic side. To do so would be at odds with the founding principle of the NHS, and the Government will do no other than stand against such an outcome.

Richard Taylor: The Secretary of State referred to the teething troubles with some of the reporting from private sector MRI scans. How will he tackle those troubles, especially given that there is no longer any contact between the referring clinician for the scan and the radiologist who does the reporting? In the past, that contact was incredibly helpful.

John Reid: There is continual liaison with the Department on this matter. Before embarking on this course of action, the Department consulted widely on it, including with the royal colleges, and we will continue to try to identify any problems involved. We should not pretend that there are never any problems in diagnostics in the NHS. There are, and they include huge delays, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of the medical programme to which he referred, waiting times for diagnostics have been cut right across the NHS. For instance, in Huddersfield, access times have been cut from 38 weeks to eight weeks; in Ipswich, they have been cut from more than 30 weeks to five weeks; and in Newham, they have been cut from 18 weeks to less than a week. While I accept that we have to deal with the problems that arise—including problems involving a degree of opposition to any novel procurement outside the NHS from people inside it; we have to take that into account—the patient must come first. The patient is getting far better, quicker service than ever before and, I repeat, all of it is free at the point of need.

Paul Burstow: These are the hidden waiting lists that the Government say they will finally publish. They will not, however, publish them until after the general election. The Secretary of State has just rehearsed some figures on improvements in diagnostics, but will he share all the figures that he has with Members of the House, so that we can see for ourselves how the NHS is improving? Will he also confirm that the announcement that he made last Friday in fact involves expending from existing NHS budgets to deliver the new contracts, rather than from new NHS funds? Will he allow the local NHS to take decisions for itself about how best to cut diagnostic waits, rather than bouncing it into a nationally arranged contract? Will he also ensure that all NHS scanning equipment is being used to the full, rather than sitting idle, as much of it is now?

John Reid: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the reason that we cannot publish comprehensive lists of waiting times for diagnostics is that, for 60 years and under successive Governments, that information was never collected. It is unfair that we do not include that information when we calculate the waiting time for operations, and I therefore pledge that it will be published. By 2008, it will be not only published but included in the calculation of the waiting time, which will be counted not just from the last little bit of the journey but from the beginning right to the end. And we pledge that it will be 18 weeks.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we would allow local providers of health care to have the power to choose how they would provide it. No, I will allow the patients to decide how, where and when they will gain access, and I will allow them to do that in days, in some cases, rather than weeks or months. I will certainly not do what some people in the Liberal party want to do, which is to break up the NHS by making it rely effectively on local authority control. That would allow inequalities to grow in the most impoverished areas, while the most affluent areas could provide better access. That, to me, is as bad as the charging regime that the Tories want to introduce.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I go on to question 5, I must point out that that is where we are, although we are halfway through Question Time. I must ask for briefer answers and, of course, briefer questions.

Local Improvement Finance Trust (North Staffordshire)

Paul Farrelly: How much is being spent on the NHS local improvement finance trust programme in North Staffordshire.

John Reid: I apologise for the delay while I open my book, Mr. Speaker.
	Around £5.4 million of public capital has so far been provided to support the North Staffordshire LIFT project. A further £4.5 million of private capital has been committed to fund the first two buildings. This will provide patients with modern accessible health care, in purpose-built, high-quality premises and, I hope, provide my hon. Friend's constituents with a far better service than before.

Paul Farrelly: I thank the Secretary of State for that welcome confirmation of additional investment in my local NHS. Two of the brand new health centres in the programme are due to be built in two of my local communities—Audley and Cross Heath. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these are examples of our real achievement in bringing the NHS right to our constituents' doorsteps? It is on that record, that achievement and that investment that we will rightly be judged, come the next general election.

John Reid: Yes, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Patients in his area—both buildings to which he referred are expected to open to patients around the end of this year—as well as in the rest of North Staffordshire and throughout the country will benefit from the new facilities, which focus on their well-being as well as treatment for illnesses. The House might be interested to know that the LIFT scheme is delivering new primary care facilities in some of the most deprived areas of the country, resulting in improved health care for patients in areas of greatest need: 75 per cent. of the most deprived primary care trust areas are part of an NHS LIFT scheme.

Health Expenditure (Manchester)

Keith Bradley: If he will make a statement on the effects of using the results of the 2001 census on health expenditure in the city of Manchester.

John Hutton: Revenue funding has been allocated to primary care trusts using the 2001 census since 2003. For the 2006–07 and 2007–08 allocations, population data have been revised to take account of undercounting and projected increases in populations. As a consequence, Central Manchester PCT, North Manchester PCT and South Manchester PCT will receive increases of 26.4, 21.7 and 28.2 per cent. respectively, compared with a national average increase for all PCTs of 19.5 per cent. for the same period.

Keith Bradley: I am grateful for that answer. The people of Manchester hugely welcome the incredibly large increases for the three PCTs, although they were concerned about the population base because of the Office for National Statistics failing to count the people of Manchester properly and missing out 20,000 people who required health care in the city. I clearly welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has now made the adjustment to that baseline figure. Can he confirm that any shortfall in previous years' budgets that is due to that failure will be properly reflected in the budget allocations for future years?

John Hutton: Yes, I can give my right hon. Friend the absolute assurance that that will be so, using the data for the allocations for 2006–07 and 2007–08. He might also be interested to know, as might my other hon. Friends who represent Manchester, that, in addition to those resources, we have put into the baseline budgets for all the Manchester PCTs £20 million of capacity building resources. That was included originally in 2003 on a non-recurrent basis. Essentially, that means that an additional £8 million has gone into the baseline budget of the Manchester PCTs.

Graham Stringer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, or at least I think I am. Can he confirm that his answer on the budget for the Manchester PCTs from 2007 onwards—he says he will adjust the baseline—is in contradiction to the letter that he sent me about three weeks ago, in which he said that he would not change the baseline? If it is, I welcome it; if not, I look forward to continuing the discussion with him on Friday afternoon in the Adjournment debate.

John Hutton: We have not retrospectively adjusted the PCTs' budgets in relation to the undercount that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) referred to earlier. What we have done, as he asked me to confirm, is put right that undercounting for 2006–07 and 2007–08. That has informed the revenue allocations for the Manchester PCTs for 2006–07 and 2007–08.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will be aware that people in Manchester are genuinely very grateful and that they recognise the enormous amounts of money that this Government are putting into health generally, but will he reflect on the fact that we in Manchester still face some of the most entrenched problems of health inequality? My constituents, like those of my Manchester colleagues, will die younger than others and be sicker for large parts of their life. In that context, it is difficult for us to accept that, because of a failure of the ONS, moneys were withdrawn and will not be replaced. Will he seriously consider whether that is fair to a population who are, by all accounts, deprived in health terms?

John Hutton: I can only say to my hon. Friend that Manchester PCTs are getting some of the biggest increases in resources that they have ever had. That is because of the additional resources that are available to the NHS and because we have also targeted additional resources on Manchester to deal precisely with the concerns that he has raised about the health inequalities gap, which separates Manchester from the rest of the country. It is true that a baby boy born in Manchester today will live seven years less than a baby boy born in Dorset. That is totally unacceptable. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is making £500 million of additional investment available this year to provide support in respect of the problems to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention.

Special Needs

Bob Russell: What his policy is on ensuring that those with physical disabilities and learning difficulties who attend hospital for treatment have their special needs taken into consideration.

Stephen Ladyman: The Government are committed to patient and user-centred hospital services that are accessible for all.

Bob Russell: May I invite the Minister to visit Colchester general hospital to see some exciting, pioneering work that is being undertaken by disability nurse specialists? I believe that it is the first such hospital in the country to have such an appointment. It is funded by the John Grooms disability charity and the Rank foundation for two years. The work undertaken by disability nurse specialist Chrissie Wiseman has been a particular success story, not just for patients with physical disabilities but in terms of financial savings to the NHS. Will he accept an invitation to come and see this pioneering work, with the intention of rolling it out across all hospitals in the United Kingdom?

Stephen Ladyman: I am forced to begin by breaking the habit of a lifetime and being nice to a Liberal Democrat. I must thank the hon. Gentleman not only for bringing this scheme to my attention and letting my office know about it but for the praise that he has given to such an excellent initiative. If we want hospital services to be genuinely built around people's needs, we must mainstream our thinking about people with disabilities and ensure that services are designed that are really appropriate to them. The scheme in Colchester that he has outlined is an excellent initiative and a good model for the future. It is also a good example of the contribution that the voluntary sector can make to the health service. I congratulate everybody who is involved with it and look forward to being able to visit it at some point in the future.

Tom Clarke: In thanking my hon. Friend for his excellent work in this field, may I ask him whether he is aware of the letter that appeared in The Independent on 2 February, signed by a number of distinguished experts in health care? It pointed out that, in terms of preventable mortality, people with learning disabilities are four times more likely to suffer than the rest of the population. Will he therefore consider annual health checks for people with learning disabilities and perhaps an inquiry that is sensitive to the fact that those figures impact on an important group of patients?

Stephen Ladyman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his words. I do not recollect seeing the letter to which he refers, but I am well aware of the issue. He is absolutely right that mortality levels for people with learning disabilities are much higher than for the rest of the population, and other factors are now coming into play: for example, a high proportion of people with Down's syndrome are now reaching retirement age, and a much higher proportion of them have Alzheimer's and forms of dementia. What he says is absolutely right, and we need to consider health checks for people with learning disabilities. We are working on that in the Department at the moment, and we are consulting interested bodies such as Mencap on how we can best implement it. We want to move ahead on this issue.

Martin Smyth: May I support the pressure applied by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), and ask the Minister about the extent to which the implementation of such good intentions is being scrutinised? It is important that that is spread around, especially with regard to the good news from Colchester. Will he bear it in mind that some of the most difficult cases are those with hidden disabilities, such as those who have gone to waiting rooms, not heard their names called and been harangued afterwards because they did not answer?

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is unacceptable, and I am afraid that it does happen. Whether it is in relation to people receiving treatment in primary care or in hospitals, we must root that out and resolve such issues. The "Valuing People" support team is actively engaged with all local health authorities, and is trying to ensure that the messages in that White Paper are being implemented. We try to keep pressure continually on this area. Of course, where best practice is identified, such as the John Grooms service in Colchester if it proves to be the success that we believe it will, we shall ensure that it is well disseminated among the rest of the health service.

Brian Iddon: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Down's Syndrome Association on the launch of its health alert campaign in February 2002? With the help of St. George's hospital medical school in London, it has produced a website that is used to train medical students and other health professionals to combat discrimination against Down's syndrome people and others with learning difficulties in the national health service.

Stephen Ladyman: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the association. That is yet another example of the contribution that the voluntary sector can make to the health service—which is why I am keen for the sector to maintain its involvement, and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said publicly that he wants it to be involved more.
	The education programmes that the Down's Syndrome Association is promoting with medical students are vital. Only when all health professionals really understand the needs of people with learning and other disabilities will we start to make progress in cracking this problem.

Julian Lewis: Will the Minister guarantee that when people with physical or mental disabilities have to stay in NHS hospitals, they will at least have the benefit of being admitted to single-sex wards? Given that the Government have failed to keep their pledge to eliminate mixed-sex wards—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is far too wide of the question.

Influenza Vaccine (Carers)

Phyllis Starkey: If he will make a statement on NHS provision of influenza immunisation for carers.

Melanie Johnson: The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has recommended that, at the general practitioner's discretion, the main carers for an elderly or disabled person whose welfare may be at risk if the carers fall ill should be offered flu vaccine.

Phyllis Starkey: May I draw the Minister's attention to a very successful project undertaken in my constituency by Milton Keynes primary care trust, together with the Milton Keynes carers project? Free flu vaccination is offered to all carers in the area through their GPs. May I draw particular attention to the side effect of that? Many GPs realised for the first time how many of their patients had a caring role, and were able to rethink the way in which they provided services for them throughout the year.

Melanie Johnson: I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has drawn my attention to the good practice in her constituency. I should be delighted to receive more details, and I assure her that we will look at what is happening. We are keen to see more take-up, and given that 5.2 million people are involved in caring across the United Kingdom, we are keen for vaccination to be extended to them where that is appropriate.

Andrew Lansley: Is the Minister aware of the French Government's contingency plan for an avian flu pandemic? Has she read the plan? If so, she will know that the French Government estimate that in the absence of intervention, between 91,000 and 212,000 deaths could occur in France. On that basis, four months ago the French Government purchased 13 million doses of oseltamivir. Have the Government made any progress in deciding whether they will purchase protection for care workers, health workers and groups at risk in this country in the event of a pandemic?

Melanie Johnson: Yes, and we will make an announcement shortly.

Andrew Lansley: I am afraid that the Minister's reply is simply not good enough. [Laughter.] It is not. Labour Members should realise that four months ago the French Government purchased—[Interruption.] Labour Members should listen to this. In the unhappy event that the avian flu experienced in south Asia continues to be transmitted from human to human—so far there have been two instances of that—they will need to know the facts.
	Antiviral agents have been purchased by the French, Australian, Canadian, United States, Belgian and Dutch Governments, and the German Government are currently negotiating. The Secretary of State nods, but the British Government have not even begun negotiations to purchase oseltamivir as an antiviral agent. As I said, the French Government have purchased 13 million doses.
	The British Government were quick enough to buy smallpox vaccine from PowderJect Pharmaceuticals. When will they take seriously their responsibility both to publish their contingency plan and to take measures to protect against the risk of a pandemic in the next 12 months?

Melanie Johnson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises, as we do, that pandemic flu presents all countries with a major public health challenge. Along with other countries, we are drawing up plans that will be subject to consultation, with the aim of producing a coping strategy should a pandemic occur.
	I have already said that we will make an announcement shortly. We have said that a plan will be available this spring, and it will be.

Vulnerable Adults

Andrew Stunell: What recent assessment he has made of delays by the Criminal Records Bureau in processing Protection of Vulnerable Adults First checks.

Stephen Ladyman: Departmental and CRB officials have met to discuss delays in processing Protection of Vulnerable Adults First applications, and the Department is monitoring the situation. The CRB's performance continues to improve, and it is currently processing 95.8 per cent. of valid applications within 48 hours, and 99.7 per cent. within 72 hours.

Andrew Stunell: I thank the Minister for that answer, which will be of some comfort to my constituents, who find that there are delays in getting appointments at care homes and with care home managers, who have had grave difficulties in staffing their homes because of the non-availability of those checks. Will he undertake to improve that performance yet more, so that the unacceptable shortfall on achieving the targets can be overcome and the Criminal Records Bureau can deliver the service that my constituents and care home owners and managers need?

Stephen Ladyman: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I will do everything I can. He and his constituents should remember that, if it were still necessary for someone to have a complete Criminal Records Bureau check before they could take up work, often they would have to wait up to a month to take an appointment, which would not be acceptable to the sector. By introducing POVA First, we have given a mechanism whereby, theoretically at least, people can start to work within a few days. The advice that he should give his constituents is that, in order to facilitate the process, they should work as hard as they can to ensure that their applications are as accurate as possible. It is only when the accurate application is in that the POVA check can take place.

Adrian Bailey: I welcome the steps that the Minister has taken to protect the vulnerable elderly. Does he agree that much elder abuse takes place in the home and that there is a strong case for projects such as that run by Comic Relief to raise public awareness of the problem?

Stephen Ladyman: Elder abuse is horrifying and we need to eliminate it—there is no question about that. I welcome the focus that Comic Relief is putting on the issue. I have had discussions with it about what it is doing. I and the Department are working with it to try to raise the profile of the issue. I believe that there is a play on Thursday evening this week that will highlight the issue even more, but we must remember that there are difficult balances to be struck. When abuse takes place in an individual's home between family members, there is a limit to the extent to which the state can intervene. That is why raising awareness is one of the key things that we must do.

Complementary/Alternative Medicine

David Tredinnick: What steps he is taking to encourage primary care trusts to make use of complementary and alternative medical treatments.

Melanie Johnson: It is the responsibility of primary care trusts to commission health care packages for NHS patients, including the use of complementary and alternative medical treatments.

David Tredinnick: Will the Minister congratulate Hinckley and Bosworth primary care trust on its initiative to look at all aspects of complementary medicine in its health proposals? Is she not way behind what is happening in Wales, where, according to The Western Mail, the Welsh Assembly is issuing leaflets to the whole of the country about how people can access free complementary medicine?
	I have given the Minister notice of this question. What does she think about the Get Well UK centre in north London, where it is possible, through contracts with GPs, which it provides, for people to find complementary practitioners who have a stamp of approval and meet the standards required? Has she looked into that initiative?

Melanie Johnson: Health matters in Wales are matters for the Welsh Assembly, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for notice of the question in relation to Get   Well UK. We understand the benefit that many people get from complementary therapies. Local commissioning is a matter for local discretion, but we can see the benefits to local practices of an intermediary pulling together a range of services in the area for alternative medical treatments. We accept that such developments are positive, and indeed they have been made possible by the fact that we have introduced a more flexible system of providing primary medical services.

Alistair Burt: I had a long-running case where constituents fought continually with doctors to convince them that a simple change of diet would be beneficial in the treatment of their son, who was being given drugs to deal with mental health problems after cannabis use. In encouraging PCTs to do more with complementary and alternative therapies, can she also encourage them to recognise more clearly the relationship between diet and behaviour in certain mental health problems?

Melanie Johnson: That is a matter not only for the Department but for the relevant professional bodies and the mental health organisations, but I accept the importance of the connections that the hon. Gentleman describes. Indeed, diet and its importance to health is also a central plank of the public health White Paper.

Medical Supplies

Edward Leigh: When the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency will publish a list of prostheses that meet the National Institute for Clinical Excellence benchmark.

Rosie Winterton: The list of prostheses that meet the NICE guidance will be launched at the British Hip Society annual meeting on 3 March 2005, and a full list will be published on the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency's website.

Edward Leigh: The Minister will be aware that the May report of the Public Accounts Committee found that there was no evidence that the prostheses used by one in 10 consultants were adequate, so this is a serious problem. When the list is published, will she ensure that all consultants are aware of the NICE guidelines, and that they use only prostheses that meet them?

Rosie Winterton: Yes, we certainly will. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the list has been independently evaluated, but we will work with the profession to ensure that it is disseminated, so that everybody who needs a copy has one.

Occupational Therapists

Andrew MacKay: If he will make a statement on recruitment of occupational therapists.

John Hutton: Since 1997, the NHS occupational therapy work force has increased by 3,873, or 34 per cent. Over the same period, the number of occupational therapists in training has increased by 90 per cent. Improved pay, increased investment in training, more flexible working and better child care will allow us to continue to expand the number of occupational therapists working in the NHS.

Andrew MacKay: Why, then, is there still such a shortage of occupational therapists in my constituency, which is causing grave distress to many elderly and vulnerable people? Has not the Minister had seven years to put this right? Why is it still a problem?

John Hutton: We have never said that every shortage has been dealt with; of course it has not. I will certainly look into the right hon. Gentleman's own primary care trust, but it is important to bear in mind the figures that I have just given. There has been a significant increase in the number of occupational therapists working in the NHS, and the number in training has doubled. None of that would have been possible if we had stuck with the spending plans that he supported.

Stephen McCabe: Given the concerns of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), is it not possible to recruit more immigrant labour to work as occupational therapists in Bracknell and elsewhere?

John Hutton: Yes, that might well be possible.

Waiting Times (Cancer)

Parmjit Gill: What assessment he has made of waiting times for cancer treatment.

John Reid: In 1997, 63 per cent. of people with suspected cancer were seen by a specialist within two weeks of urgent referral by their GP; today, that figure is more than 99 per cent. Treatment for certain types of cancer—breast cancer, for example—is now provided quicker than ever before. Some 97 per cent. of women start treatment within two months of an urgent GP referral. We are now ensuring that, through improved diagnostic and treatment services, this standard will soon be reached for all cancer patients.

Parmjit Gill: A Royal College of Radiologists report published last year found that waiting times for treatment had actually increased across the country. Ministers often cite the two-week wait for diagnosis, but it is still difficult to get a picture of how long constituents such as mine have to wait for different types of cancer treatment. When will the Secretary of State's Department publish all the waiting times for the different types of cancer treatment?

John Reid: I think that I answered most of those points earlier. It would be churlish of me to point out that if this matter were left up to the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, targets for waiting times would be abolished completely, which would cause such times to rise again. People are now seeing GPs more quickly than ever before. People with suspected cancers are being referred to consultants more quickly than ever before; indeed, 99 per cent. are seen within two weeks. However, I accept that that means that we now have to tackle the backlogs and bottlenecks in diagnostics and radiotherapy, which is why we are putting in so much extra money and introducing so many extra diagnostic tests. I have just announced another £1 billion for 2.4 million extra scans, all of which will be free on the national health service.
	I do not pretend for one moment that we have perfection, but the hon. Gentleman should find, even in the limited time that he has represented the people of Leicester, South, that there have been huge and significant improvements in all cancer treatments. If he wants the proof of the pudding, the reality is that we have now seen 12 per cent. fewer deaths—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to make it clear that the propaganda issues at Health questions are going to stop.

Dennis Skinner: What about them over there?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman says, "What about them?". When they are out of order, I will deal with them. When Ministers are out of order, I will deal with them as well, and the hon. Gentleman will not tell me how to chair the proceedings of the House of Commons. I put out more than a hint that I wanted to move through Health questions at a reasonable pace, and I am being ignored. It will not happen again.

Asian Tsunami

Tam Dalyell: What representations his Department has made to the World Health Organisation on clinical lessons that have been learned from treatment of victims of the tsunami.

John Hutton: The Government's response to the tsunami was co-ordinated by the Department for International Development. The Department of Health and the Health Protection Agency have worked with the Department for International Development in supporting the UK's international response to the disaster, including responding to World Health Organisation requests for support.

Tam Dalyell: Is there not a great deal to be learned from these dreadful events about post-traumatic stress?

John Hutton: Yes, there certainly is, and I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention to the Health Protection Agency.

Prevention of Terrorism

Charles Clarke: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which is being introduced today.
	On 26 January, I told the House that I intended to bring forward a Bill as quickly as possible to repeal the powers in part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001—the 2001 Act—and to replace them with a new scheme of control orders applicable to all suspected terrorists irrespective of whether they are British or foreign nationals and, in relation to most controls, irrespective of the type of terrorism with which they are involved. The Bill is designed to meet the Law Lords' criticism that the previous legislation was both disproportionate and discriminatory.
	The Bill needs to be seen in the context of the scale of the continuing and serious threat to the security of the United Kingdom from terrorism. I will today publish a series of discussion papers that set out the Government's view of that threat and our strategy for reducing it. In 2004, I laid before the House a copy of the report of the noble and learned Lord Carlile of Berriew on the operation of the part 4 powers in the 2001 Act. Let no one be in any doubt that there are terrorists here and abroad who want to attack the UK and its interests.
	Some believe that the absence in this country of a terrorist outrage such as 9/11 or Madrid means that the terrorist threat has somehow passed us by or failed to materialise. That view is short-sighted, complacent, ignorant of the facts and potentially cavalier in its disregard of the safety of this country. I pay tribute today to the vigilance and professionalism of our security authorities, including the police, for all that they have done and are doing to keep this country safe. It is their efforts, rather than any reduction in the ambition of terrorist organisations, that have protected us from such an attack.
	My principal responsibility as Home Secretary is to protect this country and everyone within it. I am determined that we will take the steps necessary to ensure our safety. The Government's preferred approach—our first option—is to prosecute and convict terrorists. We are considering the scope for new offences, including that of being concerned in
	"the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism"
	and other measures, with a view to helping the police and prosecuting authorities to bring more cases to court. I intend to bring forward further counter-terrorist legislation on those issues as soon as parliamentary time allows.
	Some suggest that we could bring more prosecutions, if only we would allow intercept to be used in criminal proceedings. I have thought carefully about that, but for all the reasons set out in my written statement to the House on 26 January, I do not believe that it is true. The reality is that intercept is only a part—often a small part—of the intelligence picture in such cases. Its main value is usually in helping the intelligence and law enforcement agencies to direct their resources, such as surveillance, most effectively to disrupt terrorist activities and gather evidence to support arrests and prosecutions.
	The fact is that there will always be some people—including some extremely dangerous people—whom we cannot prosecute, either because the material that we have is inadmissible in criminal proceedings, or because it cannot be used for fear of revealing, and so endangering, sources and techniques. Some say that we should do nothing about those people, or that we should just monitor their activities through surveillance and so forth and hope to deflect them in that way. I do not accept that—the risk is too great. That is the reason for the Bill that I am publishing today.
	The Law Lords' judgment on 16 December found that the part 4 powers in the 2001 Act were disproportionate and discriminatory in that they applied only to foreign nationals, and we had apparently managed to contain the threat from British nationals without detention. As I told the House on 26 January, I accept that judgment, and therefore believe that it is important to address those concerns. We should not simply renew the current legislation, which the Law Lords so overwhelmingly regard as flawed. We should replace it—with strong measures that are fully compatible with the European convention on human rights, and applicable to both British and foreign nationals.
	The Bill that I propose empowers the Secretary of State to make control orders and to impose under them a range of controls on the individuals concerned that will be tailored to meet the threat that each poses. The purpose of the orders is to prevent an individual from continuing to carry out terrorist-related activities. The orders will be time-limited, but they will be capable of being renewed or remade if the threat posed by the individual justifies it.
	The Bill makes provision for a range of controls to be imposed. The list will include prohibitions or restrictions on the possession of specified articles or specified services or facilities, on association and movement, and on an individual's place of residence, place of work or occupation. Other restrictions will be placed on those individuals' ability to travel, including abroad. A breach of a control order without prior consent will be a criminal offence, triable in the usual way through the criminal courts and punishable by imprisonment or a fine, or both.
	At the top end, the obligations that could be imposed could include a requirement for the individual to remain in a particular place at all times, or some similar measure that amounted to a deprivation of liberty. The place in question will vary with the threat posed by the individual. It could be the individual's own home, or his or her parents' home. It could even, in certain circumstances, be in accommodation owned and managed by the Government.
	However, such severe forms of control order would require a derogation from article 5 of the ECHR before they could be implemented. As hon. Members know, article 15 of the ECHR allows member states to derogate from certain aspects of the convention where there is a
	"state of public emergency threatening the life of the nation"
	and the measures proposed are
	"strictly required by the exigencies of the situation".
	Therefore, the basis of any derogation would be those two conditions—the threat to the life of the nation, and the necessity for measures that would deprive people of liberty. The Bill therefore provides that I can make orders that require a derogation only if the following factors apply: first, if there is a designated derogation in force from all or part of article 5 in respect of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation; secondly, if the obligation imposed is such as has been described in that derogation; and thirdly, if I am satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the person is, or has been, involved in terrorism, and that the imposition of that obligation on that person is strictly required for the purposes of protecting the public from risks arising out of, or associated with, that public emergency.
	In the event that a derogation was necessary, I would make the designated derogation order. It would come into force immediately, but under the Human Rights Act 1998, it would need to be confirmed by a vote in each House of Parliament within 40 days of its having been made if it were to continue in force. So the conditions of any derogation—that is, the threat to the life of the nation and the necessity for the measures that would amount to a deprivation of liberty—would be considered, assessed and voted upon by every Member of Parliament if it were to remain in force. I believe that this framework is robust and enables the security of this country to be properly addressed in all foreseeable circumstances.
	These are rightly onerous conditions, which Parliament will have to consider at any time when a derogation is made. I have, of course, carefully considered the current situation, and I have to tell the House that it is not my intention to seek a derogation at this time.
	I am clear that a derogation is justified on the basis of the threat that we currently face. As I told the House on 26 January, there is a continuing public emergency as a result of the threat from al-Qaeda, its agenda and its adherents, including the different groups and linkages that make up the al-Qaeda movement in its broadest sense.
	However, on the second criterion for derogation—the necessity for the measures—I have been advised by the police and security authorities that they consider that the control orders that will be established by this legislation are sufficient to deal with the individuals concerned and that deprivation of liberty, although valuable, is not "strictly required", in the language of the convention. They support the measures in the Bill that allow me to impose obligations up to, but not including, a
	"requirement to remain in a particular place at all times",
	and the flexibility that they give me to tailor the controls imposed under any order to the threat posed by the particular individual. The security authorities tell me that at this stage they do not want to add anything to the range of controls that I am suggesting.
	Of course, these circumstances may change in future, and quickly. Were the current situation to worsen, we could find ourselves in a position in which it was imperative that we were able to place a particular individual or individuals under an obligation to remain in their homes at all times, or to impose some other measure that amounts, in effect, to a deprivation of their liberty within the meaning of article 5 of the European convention on human rights. The Bill will allow me to impose such an obligation on a particular individual or individuals as appropriate, provided that a designated derogation order setting out such obligations is in force.
	When considering whether to derogate, my starting point will be, as now, the threat that we face. I shall look to the security authorities to advise me on that and on the measures that they think are strictly required to meet that threat. I shall also take advice on the legal and other issues that arise in relation to any proposal to derogate before making a final decision.
	If my decision is to derogate, I shall make the necessary designated derogation order and lay it before Parliament. As I said, the order will come into force immediately but will continue in force only if it is confirmed by a vote in both Houses within 40 days of being made.
	Any derogation from article 5 of the ECHR raises serious issues. Were we to derogate, we would need to keep the need for such a derogation under regular review. The Bill therefore provides for me to lay an order, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, before Parliament every year after the first to the effect that it continues to be necessary to have the power to impose derogating obligations by reference to the derogation. That derogating control order would have effect beyond the first year of the derogation only while such an order was in force, so Parliament would have an opportunity annually to have its say on whether any derogation continued to be necessary.
	The Bill gives certain responsibilities to the Secretary of State. I know that some hon. Members would prefer those responsibilities to be allocated entirely to the judiciary. I have listened carefully to all that has been said on this point, both inside and outside the House, and I have sought in the Bill to address the concerns that have been expressed. However, as I said, the Government's, and my, prime responsibility is to protect the nation's security. In many ways, that is our paramount task. Decisions in this area are properly for the Executive, who are fully accountable to Parliament for their actions. However, when an individual is deprived of liberty for any length of time that is, of course, also a matter for the courts. Everyone must recognise that in the interests of security and speed an order may need to be imposed immediately, but in those exceptional cases of a clear requirement to make an order depriving an individual of his liberty, the courts must determine as soon as practicable whether the order should continue.
	It follows that the judiciary has a critical role to play in the process. In relation to control orders not requiring derogation, its role is to review and, when appropriate, to confirm decisions made by the Executive. For derogating control orders, its role is to decide, on the merits, whether to continue the order or to refuse to confirm it. The Bill makes full provision for that.
	The Bill provides for non-derogating control orders to be subject to challenge in the High Court by the person against whom the order has been made, and for the Court to apply the principles of judicial review in hearing the case. The Court will be able to consider the issues in both open and closed session, with a special advocate representing the interests of the subject of the order in closed sessions.
	Derogating control orders will be subject, as befits the seriousness of the issues raised, to a different form of scrutiny by the High Court involving an automatic two-stage process. On being made, the order will have to be referred immediately to the Court for consideration within seven days at a preliminary hearing to assess whether the Home Secretary had reasonable grounds, prima facie, for making the order. Both sides will be represented. There will be open and closed sessions and the interests of the subject of the order will be represented in closed session by a special advocate.
	If the Court were so satisfied, the case would be automatically referred to the High Court for a full hearing at which the Court would decide for itself, on an assessment of all the material, whether the order should have been made and what conditions should have been applied. Again there will be open and closed sessions and the interests of the subject of the order will be represented in closed session by a special advocate. It will be open to the Court at both stages to strike down the Secretary of State's order or give him directions to modify it.
	I have published the Bill today in full confidence that it meets the situation that we face in three important respects. First, I believe that it meets the judgment of the Law Lords. Secondly, the Bill rightly confirms that the security of this country lies with the Government of the day, fully responsible to Parliament and the country. The Government are fully accountable to Parliament for the way in which they carry out their responsibilities, and under the Bill that accountability will be manifest, demonstrable and timely. At the same time, the process of judicial scrutiny that I propose should meet the genuine concerns that have been raised. Thirdly, the Bill will ensure that the measures that we put in place fully meet the threat that we face from terrorism, both as we see it today and as it might, despite all our best efforts and those of other countries, develop and mutate over time.
	This is an important Bill. It raises serious and difficult issues. But we must have the capacity to protect our people now and in the future. It would be the gravest dereliction of duty to wait until we have suffered a terrorist outrage here, and then respond only after the event. I am not prepared to take a risk of that kind, and I hope the House will join me in that. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for the advance notice of the statement and for his advance briefing on the subject. The whole House will join us in paying tribute to the vigilance and professionalism of the police and security services who protect us so well.
	I do not underestimate the difficulty of the problem facing the Home Secretary. I accept that there are no easy answers, and as far as I am aware, nobody is saying that we should do nothing. However, I have to tell him that I believe that he has settled on the wrong answers, which will sacrifice essential and long-standing British principles of liberty and justice in a way that is unlikely materially to enhance the security of our people—indeed, which may act to reduce that security.
	The Government have been forced to this point by the decision of the House of Lords two months ago. One of the comments by Lord Hoffmann is particularly relevant:
	"I said that the power of detention is at present confined to foreigners and I would not like to give the impression that all that was necessary was to extend the power to United Kingdom citizens as well. In my opinion, such a power in any form is not compatible with our constitution".
	But that, in effect, is what the Home Secretary is doing. Although he has qualified it—properly and in response to representations—with some safeguards, under these proposals, for the first time in modern British history, a politician will be able by order to restrain the liberties of a British subject. He will do that on the basis either of balance of probabilities or even of simple suspicion. He will do it for reasons, and on evidence, that may not even be known to the British subject whose liberty is lost.
	A further quote from the Law Lords, this time from Lord Rodger, highlights just how extraordinary that step is:
	"The Government's assessment is . . . that it is not necessary to detain the British suspects in order to contain the threat that they pose. That is implicit in the entire policy that they adopted and emerges in any event from para 36 of the Home Office discussion paper on Counter-Terrorism Powers: Reconciling Security and Liberty in an Open Society issued in February 2004: 'While it would be possible to seek other powers to detain British citizens who may be involved in international terrorism it would be a very grave step. The Government believes that such draconian powers would be difficult to justify.'"
	It should be noted that the Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee a few weeks ago that the terrorist threat has not materially changed in the last year, so presumably that comment is still true. He reinforced that point today with his comment that the security services do not believe that they need the full extent of the powers in the Bill at this point.
	The question that has to be asked is: what is the immediate emergency that demands that draconian powers against British subjects be rushed through these Houses of Parliament without proper consideration, scrutiny or debate? What is the emergency that has arisen in the past 12 months that demands that, without proper debate, we give the Home Secretary the right to fetter the liberty of British subjects, from restricting their ability to communicate right up to and including house arrest? The only answer is, of course, the House of Lords' judgment. It is very clear from what I have quoted already that the Law Lords themselves did not envisage or encourage the proposals that the Home Secretary has put forward today.
	Tomorrow, we will debate the details and principles of the Bill, but I want to raise one or two material concerns today. The first and most fundamental is the fact that the decision is to be made by the Home Secretary, not a court of law. The Home Secretary said that decisions that affect national security should be for a politician, not a judge, to make. That is a remarkable, novel and hazardous doctrine. Even in the second world war, when enemy spies threatened the lives of thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, of soldiers and civilians, they were tried by a judge and jury under normal rules of evidence.
	I have heard it said today that the power is designed to allow the Home Secretary to act quickly. The Home Secretary's proposals for the strongest powers, above the derogation level, require review by a judge within seven days, yet under laws passed by the Government the police are already allowed to detain a terrorist suspect for up to 14 days without charge. It is, therefore, possible to detain a suspect for seven days, to bring them before a judge and have the judge make the decision, without giving the Home Secretary those powers—so the Home Secretary is abandoning a key principle of British justice for no obvious practical advantage. That thread runs through the proposals—a willingness to abandon proven principles of British justice, with little proven advantage in addressing the security threat.
	Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister apologised for the Guildford four decision. He made that apology about a decision taken in open court, with a judge and jury, with a standard of proof based on "beyond reasonable doubt", but which was still a miscarriage of justice. Conventional wisdom says that that miscarriage of justice was in part caused by the emotions in the aftermath of a terrorist outrage. What if a decision, using these powers, was taken by a Home Secretary in the aftermath of another terrorist attack? Under these proposals, a British citizen could be confined at the behest of the Home Secretary, on the balance of probabilities, on evidence never seen by the accused. What then would be the odds on a miscarriage of justice?
	The Government have quite properly and laudably put into effect measures to prevent the radicalisation of some groups in our society. These proposed laws, and the sense of injustice that they could create, could completely negate those efforts, and could indeed act as a recruiting sergeant for the enemies of the state.
	I reiterate: the Home Secretary does not have an easy task here and he has my sympathy in that regard, but there are better ways to achieve what he seeks. First, the House should have proper time to consider these proposals carefully. To that end, we are willing to support renewal of part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 for a limited period, specifically to allow time to get this right. The Home Secretary has said that he does not think that will work, which gives rise to the question of why, earlier this month, he laid the draft order for that renewal.
	We are willing, for that limited period, to co-operate in primary legislation that limits the bail conditions that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission can allow, in effect guaranteeing that the control orders the Home Secretary is outlining in the Bill—up to and including house arrest—would apply to the remaining Belmarsh detainees until properly considered legislation came into effect. That would limit the possible injustice to a small number of people for a short and limited time, and would also give the Home Secretary the certainty he is seeking for foreign nationals.
	Meanwhile, I ask the Home Secretary to give proper consideration to the proposals that all Opposition parties—and, indeed, members of his own party—have made to him: allowing the use of intercept evidence in court, along with all the other evidence that surveillance generates; the use of an investigating judge to marshal and vet evidence for the court, to protect the interests both of the security services and of the defendants; the creation of new offences, to which he alluded in his statement, such as that of "committing acts preparatory to terrorism", or offences based on American anti-racketeering laws that deal with the same sort of problems in that country; and practical options, such as significant increases in the resources available to the agencies for surveillance and other purposes.
	All those proposals, and others, will receive a constructive response from the Opposition, if they are allowed proper time for consideration. Nobody is suggesting to the Home Secretary that we should wait for a terrorist outrage, but we must consider these matters properly. If, however, the Government insist on rushing these measures through, I fear that they may do the opposite of what they want. They will create a sense of injustice among many British citizens, and do what I warned when we first discussed this: for every known terrorist that the Home Secretary confines, he may create 10 unknown terrorists, free to do harm to our people and to our nation. That would be more than a mistake; it would be a tragedy.

Charles Clarke: I am afraid to say that the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed what I said at the beginning. He and his party are in the do-nothing camp—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Do nothing, first and foremost, about the Law Lords' judgment—saying that nothing should be done about the 8–1 judgment indicating that the existing legislation is both disproportionate and discriminatory. If the Law Lords say that we have discriminatory and disproportionate legislation, I believe that there is an obligation on the whole House, not simply on the Government, to address that, and that is what we are doing.
	Secondly, on the point of substance, I indicated, and the right hon. Gentleman knows, that there are cases in which we cannot prosecute potentially extremely dangerous people, either because the material we have is inadmissible or because it cannot be used for fear of revealing and endangering sources and techniques. He knows that extremely well, but his proposition in those circumstances is explicitly to do nothing whatever about people who offer that threat. He has made it clear, as has the Leader of the Opposition, that they do not favour control orders as a device for dealing with the threat. They do not favour addressing the question directly at all. That is why it is fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman is not addressing the threat.
	Thirdly, on the judicial point, I have indicated absolutely clearly, very explicitly, substantial judicial involvement in the decisions that the Home Secretary of the day will take, including, particularly at the level of deprivation of liberty, the ability of a judge to hold a full hearing, on the balance of probabilities, rapidly to consider the Home Secretary's decision. That is not the unvarnished decision of a politician; it is the decision of a Minister of the Crown accountable to the House, subject to detailed judicial confirmation in the fullest possible way, and it should not be portrayed as anything different from that.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman proposes renewing in the other place, and later in this place, the legislation that the Law Lords have struck down as discriminatory and disproportionate. As he knows, the fact is that were we to seek such renewal, and even were that renewal to be agreed by the House and elsewhere, despite the fact that that flew in the face of the overwhelming judgment of the Law Lords, for all the reasons that were stated, it would be entirely possible for the individuals concerned to appeal that Act to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg directly in that time scale. Secondly, in that situation, it would be entirely possible for SIAC, when considering the case of the individuals currently in Belmarsh, to say that the position we had taken did not allow detention in those circumstances, despite the fact that the order had been renewed.
	If we were to accept the right hon. Gentleman's advice, we would be establishing a regime that was uncertain and unsolid, and flew in the face of the Law Lords, for a period of three, four, five or six months while the Opposition made up their mind about what they wanted to do. Even at this point, I urge them to reflect again as parliamentarians on their responsibilities to this country and to our security, and to face up to those responsibilities rather than flying away from them.

Mark Oaten: I thank the Home Secretary for being so generous with his time and for giving us advance notice of his statement. I hope that he knows that over the past week the Liberal Democrats have genuinely tried to find a real solution for this complex issue. We acknowledge that the Government have moved some way in terms of strengthening judicial review, but the difference between us remains that the Home Secretary still considers that the judge should review his decisions, while we believe that it should be judges who take the decisions, not politicians. If he is prepared to let a judge overrule his decision, I do not understand why he is not prepared to let a judge take that decision in the first place.
	Does the Home Secretary realise that if he were to apply to judges for the control orders he would, in our judgment, still be meeting his responsibilities as Home Secretary in terms of dealing with national security? Again, I ask him to reconsider his position on that issue.
	Will the Home Secretary acknowledge that his current proposals are still based on "reasonable grounds"? Should not we be moving towards a higher burden of proof? Proof should be "beyond reasonable doubt" when it comes to removing the liberties of people in this country.
	On intercepted communications, we disagree with the Home Secretary, but he previously said that he would leave the door open on the issue. I ask him today to go further than that: will he consider re-establishing the Newton committee to make specific proposals on how intercepted evidence could be used by the end of the year?
	The Home Secretary suggested that a derogation will not be needed for control orders that do not involve house arrest, but is he aware of Liberty's legal advice that indicates that, in fact, a derogation would be required for any control order? What legal advice has he sought on that issue?
	Finally, will the Home Secretary outline what his plans are if today's proposals are rejected by both Houses? Will he seek a renewal of the part 4 powers? If so, will he confirm what period he would require for that renewal? These judgments are all about the balance between the principles of justice and maintaining security. The proposals that the Government have outlined today get that balance wrong and that is why we cannot support them.

Charles Clarke: Let me first say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the approach that the Liberal Democrats have taken in the various conversations that we have had has been constructive, broadly speaking, in contrast to that of the Conservative party. Secondly, I accept that he and his colleagues have argued throughout that a judge, not a Minister such as the Home Secretary, should take these decisions in various areas. The reason why, ultimately, I do not agree is that the principle of Ministers' accountability to the House and Parliament is important, particularly in cases of national security, where the Government are charged with the responsibility of addressing those questions. However, I accept that there is a genuine difference of opinion about the way to address and deal with those questions, and I hope that he will pursue that as we consider the legislation as it goes through both Houses of Parliament. That is the right place to have exactly that discussion and conversation. We are imposing a higher burden of proof than was previously the case, both at the level below the deprivation of liberty and at the level above it.
	I believe that the Intelligence and Security Committee will look at the intercepted evidence issues and I await with interest what it has to say on the matter, but I can tell the House that I have made my decision, although I have also said in my written statement to the House that I will keep the matter under review because, on the balance of judgment, my assessment is that to admit intercepted evidence would not assist in getting convictions. However, I am absolutely ready to keep that position under review, and, as I say, I look forward to what the Intelligence and Security Committee has to say in due course on the matter.
	The legal advice that I have received is clear about the deprivation of liberty. There are always legal arguments that will proceed—we will simply see how that goes, as we move forward—but we are absolutely clear that there is a difference between, for example, some form of requirement to stay in a home or, for that matter, in a prison, and the idea of using an electronic tag or whatever. Those are qualitatively different in nature in so far as the deprivation of liberty is concerned.
	On renewal, I do not anticipate being in the situation that the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Andrew Dismore: May I bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the case of Abu Qatada, who is one of those detained in Belmarsh? I am sure that my right hon. Friend will remember that, the night before the detention powers came into effect, Abu Qatada gave the security services the slip and was on the run for some nine months before he was detained. He is widely believed to be one of the key al-Qaeda operatives in Europe. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that his new powers, if they are introduced, will be sufficient to control Abu Qatada if he is released from Belmarsh and put under the proposed regime?

Charles Clarke: First, I will not comment on individual cases. Secondly, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The advice that I have received from the security services and the police in relation to the individuals with whom we are currently concerned is that the control order regime at a level of less than the deprivation of liberty would be sufficient to secure those people, control them and prevent them from engaging in terrorist acts. I would not have made my recommendation on this matter unless there had been such a clear recommendation from the police and security services.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting serious restrictions on the liberty of the subject by Executive order. In exploring the risk of a miscarriage of justice based on suspicion, will he consult the Leader of the House? He will remember that the Leader of the House was brought to trial on a robbery charge in 1975. He was almost certainly framed and, in any event, he was acquitted, but there must have been reasonable suspicion or he would not have been brought to trial. Does that not emphasise the real dangers of taking away people's liberty based on suspicion? Surely we should accord the ordinary citizen the same protection that was accorded to the Leader of the House?

Charles Clarke: First, there is absolutely no comparison between the two cases. The fact is that we are talking in the legislation that I am introducing today about people suspected of terrorism—very serious events that require a different level of action from others. Secondly, I am explicitly proposing a level of judicial confirmation of the decisions that the Home Secretary takes that simply did not arise in the case that the right hon. and learned Gentleman identified.

Alan Howarth: My right hon. Friend will accept that Parliament has a duty to be vigilant on behalf of civil liberties, but surely we need to be hard-headed and not just romantic as we acquit ourselves of that duty. Does he accept that some of his critics ignore the fact that it is far from unprecedented for the Executive to curtail freedoms in a national emergency, that his present proposals are a great deal more limited, focused and subject to scrutiny than those of many previous Administrations, and that he cannot ignore the real threats that the nation faces, whether by allowing those who would perpetrate atrocities to go about their business or by dumping the proper responsibility as an elected Government on to the judges, when he has the primary responsibility?

Charles Clarke: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. The historical examples are legion. I was reading the other day of the decisions taken by Abraham Lincoln when he was President of the United States of America in precisely this area. He was a great fighter for liberty and he justified exactly what we are doing on the basis of the need to defend liberty. I remind all Members that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. It is that vigilance against a real and substantial terrorist threat that it is my responsibility to carry through, and I will.

Kenneth Clarke: First, does the Home Secretary accept that we face no greater risk today from British citizens committing terrorist acts than we did before the House of Lords judgment? Does he therefore accept that he has made no case at all to explain why he comes here seeking greater powers than any Home Secretary in modern times has had over British citizens and greater powers than were ever sought by his predecessor, his Government or any other Government in modern times? Secondly, does he not accept that there is a huge gulf in principle between the Home Secretary having the authority to deprive the citizen of his liberty and then someone seeking judicial review and going before a judge to try to satisfy the judge that a mistake has been made, and the judge having the first responsibility? Surely it is practicable to devise safe, secure procedures of a confined, enclosed kind whereby the Home Secretary can go before a judge and satisfy someone who is independent, which is more important than answerability to the majority in the House, that it is right to deprive a citizen of his liberty.

Charles Clarke: I do not accept that accountability to the House is not an important constitutional principle. It is very important.
	On the question of the judge, I will give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a word of clarification. I quote from the Bill that I shall introduce later today: the powers of the court on an appeal under this section include power to confirm the Secretary of State's decision,
	"power to quash the order . . . power to quash one or more obligations imposed by the order . . . power to give directions to the Secretary of State for the revocation of the order or for the modification of the obligations it imposes".
	Those are powerful powers for a judge to deal with and they are not simply a reserve for dealing with the situation.
	My final point is that there is a gulf. It was marked on 11 September 2001 by the attack that al-Qaeda launched on the United States. The nature of international terrorism was transformed by that act and it led to a state of affairs that leads to a real and substantial threat to this country today. That real and substantial threat includes British citizens and not only citizens abroad. It is incumbent on me certainly, and I would argue on the whole House, to address that threat as robustly and effectively as we can, with the provisions for safeguards that are very much within the legislation carried through. The Law Lords' judgment is an important consideration in relation to the changes, but the fact is that the threat is evolving and constant, and it involves UK as well as non-UK citizens.

Robin Cook: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us understand the great difficulty of the decisions with which he wrestles? Will he in turn recognise that those of us with first-hand experience of dealing with secret intelligence have great difficulty in accepting that something suspected should be the basis for on which liberty is deprived? I therefore warmly welcome his saying that he does not currently require the powers of detention. That being the case, is not the obvious way forward for him to confine tomorrow's Bill to those measures that the police and security services have told him are sufficient for the present task and give us rather longer to find an agreed basis on which we can retain the principle that any decision to remove the liberty of the citizen should be taken in the first instance by the courts, not the Executive?

Charles Clarke: I do think that the intelligence issues to which my right hon. Friend referred initially, particularly on weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq situation, have led to concerns about the security services and the quality of their intelligence on various issues. There can be no hiding that obvious point and I have said so previously to the House and to Select Committees. That does not, however, lead me to conclude that there are no security issues or that we can pretend that there is no threat whatsoever. That is why I will publish later today the issues papers to which I referred earlier. I think that he will agree that there is a real and substantial threat to this country from international terrorism and that it is necessary to address and deal with it. The correct thing to do is to put in place a legislative framework that recognises that and gives us the means to address it. That is what my proposals today are designed to do.

Alan Beith: In considering how to deal with this difficult problem, does the Home Secretary recognise that it has never been the basis of the rule of law in this country that the Executive decide and are accountable to Parliament for which individuals are locked up on the ground of criminality? That power has been imported from immigration legislation, which was the original basis of the decisions on the Belmarsh detainees. We would look very carefully at whether the Home Secretary had fulfilled his responsibility entirely if he put before a judge a recommendation on which the judge made the decision.

Charles Clarke: I recognise the role played by the right hon. Gentleman through his membership of the Intelligence and Security Committee. He has paid great attention to these issues, so I hope that he would agree that there is an issue of threat that needs to be addressed through legislation of this type. I accept, too, that accountability to Parliament is important, which is why a set of measures has been introduced indicating how that accountability will work.
	Finally, I accept that there is a legitimate difference of opinion, which we have discussed before, about the relative roles of the judge and the Government Minister or the Home Secretary. That is not an unreasonable, wrong or ignoble difference, and we can debate it in Parliament just as it has been debated outside Parliament. The reason for my decision and my proposal is that the Home Secretary's Executive responsibility for the security of the country is a paramount issue and should be dealt with in that way. The right hon. Gentleman disagrees, and he is entitled to do so. Let us discuss that but, in doing so, we should not move away from the critical need for legislation of this type to address and provide controls over individuals who threaten our fundamental liberties.

Clare Short: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Butler report showed it was not the intelligence about Iraq that was unreliable so much as its political interpretation, which distorted it and led to misinformed decisions? Understandably, he has stressed more than once today his view that his duty is to protect people in this country, but does he accept that that makes him unfit to interpret the intelligence? That job must be given to someone with independence, such as a judge, so that they can interpret intelligence and will not be attacked for doing so, as the Home Secretary would be, if there were an event.

Charles Clarke: I do not accept that interpretation of Lord Butler's report. I do not think that my right hon. Friend gave an accurate description of the report, so the premise on which she based her question is wrong.

William Cash: Does the Home Secretary accept that this is yet another chapter, after the Civil Contingencies Bill, the identity cards saga and so on, that shows how authoritarian the Government have become? Does he also accept that, with respect to the problem of the Strasbourg Court, whatever legislation emerges—and I strongly support the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) that it could be introduced on a temporary basis—he could get round the difficulty that he described in relation to the European convention on human rights by prefacing it with the words "notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998". That would guarantee that our judges would have to give effect to that legislation as agreed by the political will of the House.

Charles Clarke: I am glad that at least the hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of the House, just as I have sought to do in the legislation. The judgment last December was made by UK Law Lords and the British legal system and not by an overseas court in a different area. It stated that the legislation under which people are held is flawed in the two important respects that I outlined earlier. I hope that he agrees that we need to repair that flaw or problem and create a robust system of legislation rather than, as his Front-Bench team seeks to do, simply ignore it and hope that it will go away.

David Winnick: As someone who strongly opposed the Government policy on identity cards, I for one recognise that there is an acute terrorist danger facing this country after 9/11, Madrid and Istanbul, so it is necessary for the Home Secretary to act decisively to protect our country and people. Although I will support the measure that will be laid before the House for reasons that I have just given, I hope nevertheless that the judicial aspect will be reconsidered in Committee, because it is important. I do not go along with everyone who has made criticisms today, but the court plays an essential role, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind.

Charles Clarke: I will very much bear that point in mind. I hope that, when my hon. Friend looks at the legislation in detail and sees the role proposed for the judiciary, he will acknowledge that I have done a great deal to meet the concern that he has raised both in the House and in private. I pay tribute to his hard-headedness. Speaking from his long experience in the House, he acknowledged the existence of terrorist organisations and the way in which they operate, which we need to address. He has always acknowledged, whatever the political divide, the state's obligation to defend itself against such organisations. That is what the Bill is about.

Lady Hermon: I welcome the Home Secretary's hard-hitting statement and I hope to goodness that he has a quiet word with his parliamentary colleague, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland before the next statement this afternoon. The Home Secretary's statement made it clear that control orders will be applicable to all suspected terrorists, irrespective of nationality and the type of terrorism. This week, the Irish Justice Minister, no less, confirmed that Mr. Martin McGuinness and Mr. Gerry Adams are members of the IRA army council, so can the Home Secretary confirm that control orders are applicable to those gentlemen?

Charles Clarke: First, I am not going to deal with individual cases. Secondly, I hope that I will not be criticised as craven for deferring to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on these matters. I can confirm, however, that the legislation creates a framework to deal with all forms of terrorism.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend is right to emphasise that the nation faces a threat from terrorists and that these decisions are not easy, but the question of the balance between the roles of the judiciary and of the Executive is not trivial. The traditional checks and balances on the Executive have stemmed from the independence of the judiciary to make the primary decision. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look closely in the few hours that remain before Second Reading at whether he has got the balance right, as it is certainly a matter of concern for many Members on both sides of the House.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely correct to identify the balance between the judiciary and the Executive and between security and liberty. I have sought to address that and, in my statement of 26 January, I alluded to it directly. Particularly at the higher level of deprivation of liberty and derogation in that area, I believe that I am providing a process for judicial confirmation that allows judicial and court judgment at the very highest level when deciding the appropriate action to take.

Patrick Cormack: As the Home Secretary's purpose seems to be to underline the proposition that the supreme law is the safety of the state, how can he reconcile the introduction of such severe measures with the continuation of privileges to Members of the House who are associated with terrorist organisations?

Charles Clarke: Again, I shall leave that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Claire Ward: The nature of terrorism has changed and, within limits, our response must change too. Can my right hon. Friend explain the circumstances in which he would authorise an order for the detention of a suspect at home, subsequently endorsed by a judge? That would affect other members of the household. What opportunities would they have to challenge the restrictions that would ultimately be placed upon them?

Charles Clarke: First, I am grateful for my hon. Friend's acknowledgment of the fact, which needs to be given a greater hearing, that the nature of terrorism changes and that we need to change to deal with it. We cannot simply say that the situation that existed in the past is fixed. Secondly, everybody who is affected in those circumstances has the ability to take legal action to protect themselves, including other members of the family. That would be the right way to deal with any particular issue that arose.

Elfyn Llwyd: The implication of the debate so far is that there has been no change in the security situation over the past month or so. The right hon. Gentleman said in his statement that he does not intend to seek a derogation at this stage. Bearing it in mind that these are the most draconian, far-reaching and potentially dangerous provisions put before the House in the past half-century, why do we need to rush the Bill through between now and Monday?

Charles Clarke: The short answer is the answer that I gave to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). In the view of the Law Lords, the existing powers are discriminatory and not proportionate. That means, in my opinion, that if we were to continue with renewal, we would be vulnerable both as regards the individuals concerned in that case and, more profoundly, in relation to the Law Lords generally and the European Court in Strasbourg.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Prior to the opinions of the Law Lords on 18 December, no one in Government had suggested that it was in the interests of the state or necessary to enact legislation enabling Executive detention of British subjects without trial. When did it become necessary to introduce such legislation? Was it amazingly coincidental with their lordships' opinions, or had it arisen before that? If so, why were we not told about it?

Charles Clarke: No, the situation is as follows. On 11 September 2001, the threat that arose was from overseas nationals—the people who were involved in the attacks on that day. That is why the legislation was passed in 2001 to deal with it. Since that period, there has been a continuing involvement of UK nationals as well in that approach, and increasingly so. Before my time in my present office, the view was taken that, before considering how to deal with that situation, we should wait and see what the Law Lords judgment would be—rightly, I think—because it would be ridiculous to put legislation before the House while a Law Lords judgment was outstanding. As that case was going through the courts and finally to the Law Lords, the view was taken—in my opinion rightly, as I say—to await the Law Lords judgment. The Law Lords then gave their judgment, as my hon. and learned Friend knows. Their judgment was that the existing situation was discriminatory as between UK and non-UK citizens. That provoked the need to rectify the situation, as I seek to do today.

Richard Shepherd: I absolutely accept that most of us who are in the Chamber today or who are Members of Parliament have no experience of intelligence matters or the assessments that inform them, but we can question the very fear that the Home Secretary exhibits, when no other common law country such as the United States has found it necessary to take the action that he is taking today. I ask him to reflect and tell us why he rejects the views of a former shadow Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, who said that the liberty of the subject should be taken away not by the act of a politician, but by a court of law. That, he said, was a fundamental point about liberty, and it is what we are trying to weigh here today. It is the duty of the Home Secretary to demonstrate more openly why all this is necessary.

Charles Clarke: I accept the duty. Both in my statement to the House on 26 January and today, I acknowledged that there is an issue—an issue that the hon. Gentleman raises—of the right balance in these matters. I have not said that it is an open-and-shut situation. I have argued that there is a threat from international terrorism, with which we must deal. As I indicated in my statement, I shall publish later today a further set of documentation relating to the nature of that threat, how it operates and how we seek to prevent it. I say again, and it is a very important point, that the fact that we have not had a major terrorist outrage in this country since 9/11 is not a consequence of terrorist organisations not wishing to bring it about. In fact, they have sought to bring it about. However, our agencies have been able to prevent it, and for that we should pay tribute to their work. That guides our judgment as to what should be the legal regime to strengthen us in that regard.

Michael Meacher: First, we all understand the difficult situation the Home Secretary is in, but why is he so adamant that house arrest must be retained as an option when it is not used by any other Council of Europe country facing exactly the same terrorist threat as we do and when no other country has seen fit to derogate from the European convention on human rights for that reason or any other? Secondly, how can independent judicial scrutiny protect basic legal and fundamental human rights when the judge cannot reveal the secret intelligence to the suspect and therefore, crucially, cannot test the evidence that is alleged against the suspect?

Charles Clarke: On the latter point, my right hon. Friend's comments miss a key point: there are cases—I assure him there are—where there is not sufficient evidence to bring about a conviction in court, for a variety of reasons that I have listed to the House, but where the individuals concerned remain a threat to this country. It is possible to argue, as do those on the Opposition Front Bench, that we should do nothing in those cases, but it is not possible, in my view, to seek to defend the national security of the country without taking account of that. Finally, in terms of other comparisons, obviously there are entirely different judicial systems in the rest of the European Union. By the way, under those judicial systems, people are locked up in detention—not house arrest or anything of that kind, but in detention—for years and years. That is what those countries are doing.

Peter Lilley: Does the Home Secretary realise that this country is reluctant to entrust a Government who went to war on the basis of unfounded suspicion with a power to lock people up on the basis of mere suspicion? Can he confirm that he is under no legal obligation to change the law, since the Law Lords found his measures not unlawful, but simply incompatible with the European convention on human rights because they were disproportionate and discriminatory? Is it not barking mad to say that the remedy for disproportionate discrimination against a minority is to extend the same measures of harsh and disproportionate loss of freedom to the whole country? Does he realise that he is creating a precedent when there is no reason or justification for it?

Charles Clarke: First, I do not accept that it would have been appropriate to ignore the Law Lords judgment, as the right hon. Gentleman implied. It is not a good state of affairs when the Law Lords take one position and the Executive take another. We should try to bring matters on to a proper basis. I should have thought that that commanded general support across the House. On the second point that it is necessary to make in response to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think—he will correct me if I am wrong—that he would argue that the issues around weapons of mass destruction in Iraq lead to the conclusion that there is no security issue here that needs to be addressed. There are security issues. If he is saying that no security assessment can be trusted, so no action should ever be taken, I cannot imagine a less responsible position for any politician to take.

Clive Soley: It would be churlish not to recognise the very real steps that the Home Secretary has taken to bring in a judicial process at all levels and surround the power of derogation with strict controls. However, he seems to be arguing the importance of the Executive role as justification for not letting a judge take the decision. May I remind him that, under the old prevention of terrorism Acts, the exclusion orders, which in many respects were not dissimilar to what we are doing here, were profoundly unsatisfactory? If he can find a way of putting the matter before a judge, that would be helpful. Does he plan that the legislation will fall after a certain period, such as one Parliament, after which it will be renewed in another Parliament or envisage that it will be reviewed at some unspecified future date?

Charles Clarke: We propose a series of reviews over time. On derogation, I said that there is an annual review and not simply a review at the end of a Parliament. Perhaps I am not being clear enough. The judicial powers that I suggest for the Home Secretary's decisions in relation to deprivation of liberty are very substantial indeed. They are for a full court, and it is for a High Court judge to go through the whole case and assess on the balance of probabilities whether the Home Secretary's judgment was right. They will then have the power set out in the Bill to quash or modify the order if necessary, and even to direct the Secretary of State if necessary. I think that that is a very powerful situation that does not bear comparison with the historically correct point that my hon. Friend makes about the way in which prevention of terrorism legislation worked in the past.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Northern Ireland

Paul Murphy: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Northern Ireland.
	I came to this House on 11 January to make a statement relating to the Northern bank robbery on 20 December. To recall the background, a highly organised and brutal gang kidnapped the families of two staff from the bank's headquarters in Belfast, threatening them with death unless the individuals co-operated in the execution of the largest robbery ever seen in these islands.
	Since then, a major police investigation has been under way. As the House is aware, the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland made his conclusion clear that the Provisional IRA was responsible for the robbery. The Prime Minister and I have indicated that we accept the Chief Constable's judgment, which is also shared by the Irish Government and their security advisers. The Chief Constable's statement, seen in the context of other subsequent events, serves to reinforce the extent of the challenge that all of us face in working towards peace and stability in Northern Ireland.
	Earlier this month, on 10 February, I laid before the House a copy of a report presented to the British and Irish Governments by the Independent Monitoring Commission. That report, which the commission had elected to produce in addition to its normal twice-yearly reports to the two Governments, concluded that the Northern bank robbery was planned and undertaken by the Provisional IRA and that this organisation was also responsible for three other major robberies during the course of 2004. I am very grateful to the members of the commission for their quick response to the very grave situation created by the robbery and its attribution.
	The IMC concluded on the basis of its own careful scrutiny that Sinn Fein must bear its share of the responsibility for these incidents. It indicated that, had the Northern Ireland Assembly been sitting, it would have recommended that the full range of measures referred to in the relevant legislation be applied to Sinn Fein, including the exclusion of its members from holding ministerial office. In the context of suspension, it recommended that I should consider exercising the powers that I have to apply financial penalties to Sinn Fein.
	The House will recall that following the IMC's first report in April last year, I issued a direction removing for a period of 12 months the block financial assistance paid to Assembly parties in respect of both Sinn Fein and the Progressive Unionist party. Having reflected on the IMC's latest report, I have concluded that it would be appropriate for me to issue a further direction removing Sinn Fein's entitlement to this block financial assistance for a further 12-month period, the maximum permitted under the legislation. I am therefore minded to make a further direction to come into effect on 29 April—the day after the existing direction expires. Before reaching a final decision, however, I will take into account any representations made to me by Sinn Fein by next Tuesday. I will make a decision on whether to extend the financial penalties imposed on the PUP last April when I receive the next IMC report covering all paramilitary groups, which is expected in April.
	The commission's report also refers to other public money that Sinn Fein receives, although recommendations on this are outside its remit. In this context, I am conscious that hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised concerns in the past about the payment of financial allowances to the four Sinn Fein members who decline to take up their seats here. I hope that the House will welcome the opportunity to debate in the very near future a Government motion proposing that these allowances be suspended on a time scale in parallel with the arrangements at Stormont, in recognition of recent events. The debate on that motion is for another day, but I should emphasise to the House, lest anyone accuse us of denying the extent of Sinn Fein's electoral support, that the measures that we are proposing are designed to express the disapproval of all those who are committed to purely democratic politics of the actions of the Provisional IRA. All in this House recognise the degree of support for Sinn Fein, but we also believe that the actions of the republican movement are letting down everyone in Northern Ireland, including those who vote for Sinn Fein.
	There are those who will argue that these financial sanctions are insufficient as a signal of the Government's and Parliament's condemnation of recent events. They may well argue that I should take steps to exclude Sinn Fein from the political process or from the Assembly now. I want to deal with those arguments directly, because they are sincerely made and with a strength of feeling that I understand.
	The Government's ultimate goal remains the achievement of an inclusive power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland. I need not remind the House that the robbery has set back the time scale for achieving that, but the reality remains that long-term stability in Northern Ireland will not come about if we focus on exclusion. That objective requires inclusion; dialogue with Sinn Fein must continue in order to see how that long-term goal can be achieved. But I am clear that this must be inclusion on the basis of a complete and demonstrable commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means, that fundamental principle of the Good Friday agreement, enshrined in the pledge of office.
	Had the robbery occurred while the Assembly was in operation, however, the decision about exclusion would have been very different. It is inconceivable, in my view, that members of Sinn Fein could again hold ministerial office while the issue of paramilitary activity and criminality on the part of the Provisional IRA remained unresolved.
	The suggestion is made in some quarters that I should restore the Assembly, and then, if the Assembly itself failed to take action to exclude Sinn Fein, that I should take action myself using the powers available to me to exclude it. This would be very difficult in the absence of a clear plan that would see the parties in the Assembly come together on a cross-community basis to form a Government in Northern Ireland, but as I told the House on 11 January, I have not ruled anything in or out as we continue to assess possible ways forward for achieving greater local political accountability. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, if we cannot achieve a comprehensive settlement in the short term, we need to consider other ways forward.
	In the meantime, our focus will remain strongly on dealing with the underlying issue of ongoing criminal activity in all its forms. The police investigation of the Northern bank robbery is the largest undertaken by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which is continuing to follow up every lead. This is inevitably an intensive and time-consuming process, and in parallel with this, I am taking the opportunity to ensure that our arrangements for tackling organised crime remain fit for purpose, and I have asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), the Security Minister in Northern Ireland, to review the Organised Crime Task Force to see whether and how it might be strengthened.
	We continue to have excellent co-operation at both a political and operational level with colleagues from the Republic of Ireland. Yesterday, I met Michael McDowell, the Republic of Ireland Justice Minister, for a regular bilateral meeting, along with the police chiefs from both jurisdictions. At that meeting, I was pleased to see the further strengthening of co-operation, when the Chief Constable and the Garda commissioner signed protocols to facilitate the movement of officers between both forces through personnel exchanges and secondments with policing powers. That development can only serve to strengthen the existing co-operation between the two police services in tackling terrorism and other crime.
	Whatever our success in tackling criminality and paramilitary activity, the fact of the matter is that the commitment to peaceful and democratic means is not one that this Government need to make. As we said in the joint declaration of April 2003:
	"ongoing paramilitary activity, sectarian violence and criminality masquerading as a political cause are all corrosive of the trust and confidence that are necessary to sustain a durable political process."
	In the present context, it is, as the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have both indicated, for Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA to do that. They need to step forward and tell us how they will demonstrate their full commitment to all the principles of the Good Friday agreement and how they intend to demonstrate to all the other parties in the political process, and to the people of Northern Ireland, that the kind of behaviour identified in the IMC report is in the past.
	Financial penalties of the kind that I have described today may signify our strong disapproval of what has happened, but they will not of themselves rebuild the trust that is necessary if confidence is to be restored. That is a matter for the republican movement in general, and for Sinn Fein in particular.

David Lidington: As always, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his customary courtesy in giving us advance knowledge of the contents of his statement.
	The IMC report of 10 December could not have been clearer. It backed the opinion of both the British and Irish Governments, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana in attributing responsibility for the biggest bank robbery in British history and for other serious crimes to the Provisional IRA. The IMC went further:
	"Sinn Féin must bear its share of responsibility for all the incidents . . . some of its"—
	Sinn Fein's—
	"senior members, who are also senior members of PIRA, were involved in sanctioning the series of robberies".
	Does the Secretary of State share that grim assessment? Does he endorse the IMC's judgment that Sinn Fein leaders were personally responsible for those crimes? Does he agree with the Republic of Ireland's Defence Minister, who said at the weekend:
	"We are no longer prepared to accept the farce that Sinn Fein and the IRA are separate. They are 'indivisible'"?
	The Secretary of State will have noted Mr. Adams's remarks at the weekend, when he denied once again that republicans are involved in criminality. We know from the recent comments of Mr. Mitchel McLaughlin that the republican movement still decides for itself what constitutes a crime, in the bizarre belief that it constitutes the legitimate Government of the whole island of Ireland. Does the Secretary of State recall how republicans initially denied responsibility for the murder of Garda officer McCabe, for the abduction and murder of Mrs. Jean McConville, for the Enniskillen bombing and for a catalogue of murders and other violent crimes? In the light of that record, does he agree that we should treat Mr. Adams's weekend comments with utter disbelief?
	We shall support the sanctions announced by the Secretary of State today. Those of us who have advocated the suspension of parliamentary allowances for some time are glad that the Government have come round to our point of view, but it should not have taken Ministers so long to acknowledge that their decision to grant those allowances was badly misjudged. There is no statutory limit on the period for which parliamentary allowances, rather than Assembly allowances, can be suspended, so why does the Secretary of State propose to restrict that period to 12 months only? Many hon. Members, particularly, but not only, on this side of the House, have consistently taken the view that Members who refuse to take their seats and accept responsibility for representing all their constituents should not be entitled to claim the allowances that go with the discharge of those responsibilities.
	Will the Secretary of State say whether the Government's proposals mean that Sinn Fein MPs will still be entitled to offices at the Palace of Westminster and whether Sinn Fein MPs will still be able to give House of Commons passes to their staff, even if those staff salaries have to be met from Sinn Fein's alternative sources of funding?
	The reality is that the inclusive, power-sharing devolution envisaged in the Belfast agreement is sadly no longer practical politics until the republican movement has clearly and permanently put an end to its involvement in crime and its paramilitary structure. Does the Secretary of State agree that direct rule is now set to last for years rather than months? Given that time scale, is it not time for the Government to end the effective veto that they appear to have given Sinn Fein over any political progress and to try to move forward with those parties that are committed to exclusively democratic and peaceful politics, so the people of Northern Ireland can get a greater say over the major public services on which they rely? Last autumn at Leeds castle, the Prime Minister said that if that attempt at a comprehensive settlement failed, the Government would look for a different way forward. He made a promise, and it is time for the Government to deliver on it.
	Finally, the Secretary of State will be aware of the Irish Justice Minister's description of Sinn Fein-IRA as a "criminal conspiracy". In recent days, we have probably seen only the tip of a criminal underworld of mafia-type dimensions that threatens the rule of law in both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. I warmly welcome yesterday's announcement of enhanced co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda, and I wholeheartedly support the efforts of the Secretary of State and Justice Minister Michael McDowell to strengthen the effort by the two Governments to combat organised crime in both jurisdictions. Will the Secretary of State give the House an absolute guarantee that the police and all other agencies will have his and the entire Government's unreserved support in their efforts to root out paramilitary crime, and that there will be no holding back in that effort wherever or to whomever those investigations might lead?

Paul Murphy: On the final point, the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Government will expend all their attention and effort on making sure that we root out organised crime in Northern Ireland, not only in the republican movement but elsewhere. Yesterday's co-operation at Hillsborough is important, because it is the best example for many years of co-operation in dealing with criminality.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions about the political process in Northern Ireland. I am not in a position to say that direct rule will go on for years, which is not something that I want to happen—far from it. The people of Northern Ireland deserve their own Government and Assembly and to run their own affairs. To that end, different political parties and others in Northern Ireland make suggestions that the Government must examine carefully. However, if there is to be local Administration—whatever form it takes—it cannot happen without cross-community agreement about how it occurs. That depends especially on the SDLP's position and views on the matter.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the IMC and referred to the link between Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. I have no reason to disbelieve the IMC report. We have always maintained that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked and part of the same movement. Yesterday, the Taoiseach described them as two sides of the same coin. The Government believe that that is exactly the case.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to raise what constitutes crime and criminality. In answer to a question that he posed at Northern Ireland questions, I believe that the idea that individual parties can define what they believe crime and criminality to be is preposterous. The Government share his view on the definition of crime and criminality. We will root out paramilitary activity and criminality, wherever it might be, in Northern Ireland.
	The Organised Crime Task Force, to which I referred earlier, takes into account all the agencies in Northern Ireland, such as the Assets Recovery Agency, the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, the police and Departments, all working together to ensure that, at whatever level and wherever it may happen, criminality is rooted out and tackled.

Seamus Mallon: I do not intend to waste much time on financial penalties. We opposed them in the negotiations before the joint declaration. We spoke against them in the House of Commons when the legislation that set up the Independent Monitoring Commission was considered and we will do so again today. The IRA and Sinn Fein thrive on victimhood and grievances. The House should not facilitate that by handing them any more.
	On a matter of substance, the Secretary of State may recall that in the IMC debate on 17 September 2003, I repeatedly asked why "organised crime" was omitted from the list of activities that article 4 of the draft agreement and paragraph 17 of the joint declaration specified. I did not get an answer. I shall try again. Why have not the two Governments specifically included "organised crime" as one of the issues to be monitored in the legislation that set up the IMC, in the joint declaration of 2003 or in the so-called comprehensive agreement of 2004? When the Secretary of State answers that question—I hope I will get an answer this time—will he speculate on the effect it might have had on recent events if the two Governments had made it clear on those three occasions that organised crime was to be targeted in the same way as other matters?

Paul Murphy: I understand my hon. Friend's position on sanctions, but the time has come for the House of Commons and the Government to show their disapproval, especially of the events of past weeks. However, I agree that the onus and emphasis in any debate on such matters should be on the criminality and the criminal activity of the IRA. He rightly says that he has pressed that on more than one occasion, in Hillsborough and in the Chamber.
	Earlier, I quoted from paragraph 12 of the joint declaration of April 2003. It states that
	"ongoing paramilitary activity, sectarian violence and criminality masquerading as a political cause are all corrosive of the trust and the confidence that are necessary to sustain a durable political process."
	Paragraph 13 referred to, for example, so-called punishment beatings, which are criminal activities. All add up to a collapse of trust and confidence among parties in Northern Ireland. Paragraph 17 also refers to such activities.
	However, I stress to my hon. Friend that today is an opportunity for the House of Commons to express its disapproval of what has occurred and also for us to reflect on the fact that only way in which we can make progress is through the end of criminality in all its forms.

Lembit �pik: I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement and our constructive meeting this morning. As he knows, I have become increasingly frustrated because, despite eight years of Liberal Democrat support for the peace initiative, the Government have regularly not involved us and other Opposition parties on many issues at key stages of the process. I acknowledge that he and his fellow Ministers have gone some way towards rectifying that.
	Given the gravity of today's statement, will the Secretary of State share evidence that shows that the IRA carried out the Northern bank robbery, at least with my party leader, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), on Privy Council terms? I do not understand why that would not be possible.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Irish Government, Lord Alderdice, the IMC, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Government share the view that the IRA was responsible for the Northern bank robbery? Does he have evidence to suggest that paramilitaries, specifically the IRA, have been involved in other serious breaches of law and order in the Province, for example, by protecting the killers of Mr. Robert McCartney from justice, and that they are responsible for a catalogue of other criminal activities in previous months? If he can prove and connect those breaches with the IRA, we will consider the sanctions sympathetically. However, I personally feel sad that it has come to that, given the unquestionable contribution that Sinn Fein has made to the peace process on many occasions.
	Will the sanctions affect only allowances? The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) also asked that question. Will Sinn Fein Members of Parliament still be entitled to use their offices? Will their staff be entitled to retain their passes?
	Paragraph 13 of the joint declaration was mentioned. Does the Secretary of State regard it as the true touchstone for what is expected from the IRA and, indeed, Sinn Fein, if the sanctions are to be lifted? I emphasise that paragraph 13 covers criminality in all its forms and is therefore a clear statement of what is expected.
	Should not we distinguish between the lawless behaviour of republican paramilitaries and the rights and interests of the Catholic community in the north of Ireland? Does the Secretary of State agree that we must recognise that nationalism and republicanism are legitimate political viewpoints, whether one agrees with them or not? In that context, does he accept that, even with the sanctions, Liberal Democrats will try to continue to work with representatives of those communities, including Sinn Fein representatives? Will he give an assurance that, notwithstanding the sanctions, he and the Government remain committed to working with Sinn Fein and other parties in the interests of peace?

Paul Murphy: On the last point, I said in the statement that we intend to continue to talk to all parties in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that nationalists and republicans have every right to express their political point of view democratically. However, it is not legitimate for paramilitary activities or criminality to be linked to such parties. That is the difference.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to paramilitary activity in all its forms. He will recall that, when discussions were held between parties before Christmas, criminality formed an important part of any agreement that was to have been finalised. I failed to mention that in an earlier answer.
	I share the hon. Gentleman's sadness on this occasion. I feel no joy or pleasure in coming to the House to make today's statementfar from it. Everybody who has been involved in the past few years in trying to bring political stability and peace to Northern Ireland will experience no joy at today's statement. However, we must accept the reality of the current position.
	On sanctions, the resolution that the Government will present to the Chamber deals with Sinn Fein Members' allowances. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to discuss the detail when the debate takes place on the Floor of the House soon.
	I take the hon. Gentleman's point about briefing his party leader. I shall discuss that with the Chief Constable.

Harry Barnes: Will my right hon. Friend look at the total finances of Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA with a view to extending mainland provisions on the monitoring and control of the funding of political parties to Northern Ireland? Will he also ensure that the Assets Recovery Agency directs its attention to Sinn Fein, the Provisional IRA and various individuals? That can be done on an all-Ireland basis because the legislation on which the Assets Recovery Agency is based was taken from legislation in the Republic of Ireland.

Paul Murphy: I understand my hon. Friend's point about the funding of political parties. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is dealing with the Irish Government on that matter. Dealing with party funding generally on the whole island of Ireland, and ascertaining where their income comes from, is obviously an important issue. I take great account of the point about the Assets Recovery Agency. Part of the discussion that I had yesterday with the Justice Minister and the Garda commissioner related to how the agency in Northern Ireland could work with its counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, the Criminal Assets Bureau.

Ian Paisley: May I put it on record that the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland are greatly insulted by the attitude taken by IRA-Sinn Fein over these recent events? The Secretary of State said at the end of his statement today that IRA-Sinn Fein
	need to step forward and tell us how they will demonstrate their full commitment to all the principles of the Good Friday agreement and how they intend to demonstrate to all the other parties in the political process, and to the people of Northern Ireland, that the kind of behaviour identified in the IMC report is in the past.
	We have listened to nothing else but apologies from IRA-Sinn Fein, and every person who has raised their voice for equity, decency and law-abiding principles has been maligned and lied about by the IRA-Sinn Fein leaders. The law-abiding people of Northern Ireland are sick of these insults. The leaders of IRA-Sinn Fein have stepped forward, and they have lied about the things that were brought to their attention. All that they could do was to malign the people who brought the charges. The time has surely come for this Government and this House to set their own affairs in order, and to say that there is no place in a democracy for armed terrorists and their campaign of crime against the decent citizens of Northern Ireland.
	The Minister of Defence in the south of Ireland has said plainly that two of the people in question are in the army council. If that is soand I believe that it is; these charges were made long ago by those of us who come from Northern Irelandthis House should rid itself completely of those who are in the IRA or any other terrorist organisation. They should not have membership of this House. I trust that, when the Bill comes before the House, we shall have the opportunity to deal fully with these matters. Those people should not receive any money from the House, and they should be stripped of their privileges here. The time has come for stern, straight action to deal with this matter, and until it is dealt with, there cannot be proper, democratic rule in Northern Ireland. I am disgusted with the attitude of the Liberal Democrats here

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to pose a question to the Secretary of State.

Ian Paisley: My question is: why should I not, as an Ulsterman, denounce the Liberal Democrats for apologising for IRA murderersbloody murderers?

Paul Murphy: I shall keep out of that one, I think. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I could not agree more with his first point about the ordinary people of Northern Ireland who are decent, law-abiding citizens, whether they be nationalist or Unionist. Today must be a huge disappointment to those people in Northern Ireland who have taken great strides in the development of cross-community reconciliation, both in economic and social terms. I think that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that every city, town and village in Northern Ireland has great examples of development and progress that many of us would have believed impossible many years ago. What we are having to discuss today is in many ways a slap in the face for the people who are making that progress. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need demonstrable evidence of change. That is where the IMC comes in. Of course, I also agree that there is no place for armed terrorists in a democracy.

Eddie McGrady: The Minister said in his statement that the Government's objective was to have an inclusive power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland, and that the test for such inclusion was a demonstrable commitment to non-violence and non-criminality. Does this mean that the Provisional IRA, which the Government state is indistinguishable from Sinn Fein, must decommission, de-structure and decriminalise before such an Executive can be set up? That appears to have been the intention of the joint declaration of April 2003, to which the Secretary of State has referred. Yet the Government were willing to ignore criminality as recently as up to 8 December, in spite of the knowledge of three major robberies attributed to the IRA and of other criminal activity. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether this is a permanent change of Government policy?

Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend will understand, because he was deeply involved in the negotiations in the run-up to the signing of the Good Friday agreement, that the idea of an inclusive Executivebased, as it must be, on non-violent, peaceful and democratic meanswas the objective of everyone in Ireland, north and south. That is what people voted for. The problem that we now face is that decommissioning has not happened in the way in which we all thought that it should, over a period of just two years, as we agreed.
	My hon. Friend is also right about criminality. In 1998, everyone thought that there would be a transitional period in which there would be a withering away, as it were, of criminality and all the other activities that paramilitaries get up to. However, the reality is that the robbery of the Northern bank and other activities show that it has not gone away. Unless we address that issue, the trust necessary to restore the Executive will never be there. We must therefore emphasise to the Provisional IRAand, indeed, to loyalist groupsthat, unless criminality is abandoned, we shall not make any progress towards the political stability that we want in Northern Ireland.

David Trimble: We will, of course, support the sanctions that the Secretary of State has mentioned, but I have to say to him that he could have, and should have, gone much further. Perhaps he recalls the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), saying at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Government in September 2003 that
	we envisage no circumstances in which we would not exercise the power
	that is, the power to exclude from an Executive
	in a manner consistent with the IMC recommendations.[Official Report, 17 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 982.]
	Yet all that is saving Sinn Fein from exclusion from office in an Assembly now is the Government's decision to continue suspension. I regard that as a failure to comply with that undertaking, and I urge the Secretary of State to look again at the matter.
	Does the Secretary of State also realise that his failure to act on this matter reinforces the suspicion that all that the Government want to do is to let a little time pass by before they reheat the DUP-Sinn Fein deal of last December? He must realise that that will not work. It probably would not have worked then, and it certainly will not work now. It is possible to establish a cross-community Executive, but not one including the republican movement. Consequently, if he will not recall the Assembly, we are left with the only realistic course, which is to try to democratise direct rule as soon as possible.

Paul Murphy: On that last point, I am sure that there is a lot of opportunity for debate on what democratising direct rule would mean. The earlier point represents the right hon. Gentleman's view, which he has held very sincerely over the last couple of weeks in particular, that there should an end to the suspension, that the Assembly should be recalled and that an attempt should be made, having excluded Sinn Fein, to set up a cross-community Executive. If I thought that was workable, I would think there was some merit in the point, but, as he knows, there must be cross-community support on that particular issue. Obviously, work has to be done with regard to that matter.
	As I said in my statement, we are not going to rule anything out or anything in. We must not have closed minds to any particular suggestions, because, whatever happens, it seems to me, direct rule is the worst of all options. There should be an attempt to plug that democratic deficit in whatever the best way possible. We will continue to consider different options in that respect.

Helen Jackson: May I welcome in particular the part of my right hon. Friend's statement that sets out further strengthening of the Garda in the Republic and of the Northern Ireland police, especially as this phase can be brought to an end only when the perpetrators of the Northern bank robbery, and indeed of the recent murder in west Belfast, are identified, brought to trial and put behind bars? As the evidence for who those people are almost certainly rests with the Sinn Fein political party and the republican communities, is it not time for the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister to make it absolutely clear that now, any elected representative in either state will be expected to co-operate with the police in either country to bring those criminals to justice and put them behind bars? Is it not time to insist that elected political representatives take their full responsibility within their communities and do not pick and choose, saying, We can manage to avoid co-operating with the police against criminality?

Paul Murphy: On co-operation, my hon. Friend is right on two counts. The first is the question of co-operation between the two police services. It has never been better, and there was evidence for that yesterday in the signing of the protocols at Hillsborough castle. The success of the different police investigations over the last few weeks is also evidence of that close co-operation. Secondly, she is of course right that everybody in Northern Ireland, whatever their political or religious background, should be co-operating with the police to find the perpetrators of murder and of robbery.

Robert Walter: The Secretary of State might have read the line in this morning's Irish Independent:
	Perhaps the only thing the Provos do better than knee-capping, drug-dealing and gutting people from navel to sternum is wounded indignation.
	He mentioned his meeting yesterday with Michael McDowell, the Irish Justice Minister, who has been unequivocal in saying that Sinn Fein and the IRA are the same organisation, and has named their leadership as Adams, McGuinness and the Irish Sinn Fein TD Martin Ferris.
	In the context of the fact that five men were jailed in Dublin yesterday simply for membership of the IRA, can the Secretary of State tell us what the Home Secretary meant when, during the earlier statement, he answered several questions about the application of his prevention of terrorism measures to Northern Ireland by saying that he would defer to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who was about to make his statement?

Paul Murphy: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I was not here and that I did not hear that statement, but I will discuss those matters with my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman is also right to point out again the linkage between Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. That is why we are in the Chamber today, dealing with the issues that we have to deal with.

Frank Field: Is membership of this House compatible with membership of the army council? If not, what action does the Secretary of State propose to take against those individuals who have a dual mandate?

Paul Murphy: Any action against individuals on membership of illegal organisations is obviously a matter for the police. The Chief Constable will deal with any illegality.

Frank Field: And the House?

Paul Murphy: As far as the House is concerned, that is a matter for the House itself. It will have an opportunity to debate those issues in a couple of weeks when the Government table their motion.

Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the comprehensive agreement, unlike the previous dispensation under the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), which allowed Sinn Fein to be in government while it continued its criminal enterprises and terrorist activities, required of Sinn Fein-IRA that they decommission all their weapons verifiably and transparently, that they end all criminal and paramilitary activity before ever being in government, and that there would be a testing period so that the assessment could be made as to whether that was indeed so?
	Does the Secretary of State stand by the man whom he said in his statement he has some admiration forthe Justice Minister of the Irish Republicwho clearly, with the same information at his disposal as the Secretary of State, named Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Martin Ferris as members of the IRA army council? Does not the Secretary of State fear naming those people in those positions because of the impact that that would have on the Government's policy of inclusivity? Does he not accept that many people in Northern Ireland are somewhat embarrassed that there is more robust action from the Government of the Irish Republic than from our own Government?
	In terms of the financial penalties that the Government are considering, will they consider also the fact that this Government regulate payments to the European Parliament and whether Sinn Fein's MEP should be punished in like manner? Will they also look at those who are in local government and the benefits they accrue?

Paul Murphy: I probably have enough on my plate at the moment so far as our own Parliament is concerned, and it is obviously a matter for the European Parliament how it deals with some of those issues. That is also the case for local government. Today, we are dealing with what the House itself can deal with. If the hon. Gentleman feels that there is a possibility of raising the issues involving the European Parliament, he may have the option to do so, if the rules permit, when we debate those matters in several weeks' time.
	I agree entirely with the Justice Minister about the linkage between Sinn Fein and the IRA. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that the agreement we were negotiating before Christmas laid great emphasis on ensuring that we dealt with the issue of criminality and that we dealt also with the testing period between the time of the agreement and when it would come into force. However, I also have to say that no Member from any party in the House would disagree with my saying that we must emphasise the fact that criminality is at the root of our problems at the moment.

Tony Clarke: All of us in the House wish the PSNI and the Garda Siochana every success in bringing those responsible for these terrible crimes to justice. We look forward to the evidence being presented to the House. Does my right hon. Friend share the legitimate concerns of those of us who worry that invoking financial penalties and making links with individuals in the House at the same time as we are talking about those crimes only adds to the press and media speculation that there was a personal involvement linking Members of the House to those crimes? Will he take this opportunity to say whether he agrees or disagrees with the statement from the Justice Minister, Michael McDowell, that Members of this House are members of an illegal organisation?

Paul Murphy: In terms of the penalties, because the Assembly is not up and running at the moment, effectively the only thing that we can do is deal with the allowances and the position of Sinn Fein Members of the House. That is a matter for the House to decide. I have already made my point about the linkage between Sinn Fein and the IRA, but although we have had to discuss the question of sanctions, as that is the nature of today's statement, it is important that we never lose sight of the issue that has brought about those sanctions, which is criminal activity, whether robbing banks of 26.5 million or shooting young men in our cities in Northern Ireland through their hands, ankles or knees. Any form of such activity must stop. Unless it does, as I said earlier, any sort of inclusive Executive is simply impossible. It is important to bear that point in mind.

Patrick Cormack: Does the Secretary of State realise how absurd it is that tomorrow, when this House debates the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness could be entertaining friends within the precincts, spending the profits of their recent ill-gotten gains and discussing the bloody murders that they have committed in the past? Cannot he express an opinion on that?

Paul Murphy: Yes, I have already expressed the opinion that, as far as we are concerned, the criminality that surrounds paramilitary activity, which culminated in the robbery of the bankI have referred to other criminal activities, toohas resulted in today's statement. That statement has reported that the Government will give the House the opportunity to end all the allowances for Sinn Fein, as far as that affects the House, and that we will support that decision.

Patrick Cormack: And access?

Paul Murphy: That is a matter for the House to consider in some weeks' time. The fact that the Government have given the House that opportunity speaks for itself.

Kate Hoey: But why will the Government not include in the motion to stop the allowances paid to Sinn Fein Members the further provision that they should not be here at all? Is not it absolute nonsense that we are discussing anti-terrorism activity and security in the House, and yet democratically elected Members are expected to walk around and bump into people whom Michael McDowell from the Republic of Ireland has said are members of the army council? Does the Secretary of State agree with Michael McDowell that Gerry Adams and the other member of Sinn Fein-IRA who was mentioned are members of the army council?

Paul Murphy: I have indicated more than once in the House that I believe that there are absolute linkages between the IRA and Sinn Fein at all levels. My hon. Friend might also have heard me say in the media today that I do not intend to talk about individuals or individual cases in the House. [Hon. Members: Why?] For all sorts of reasons, including the fact that the Chief Constable must deal with certain issues and that it is an intelligence matter. I also hope that Members will understand that I believe strongly that this is a matter of great public interest in Northern Ireland. That also means that members of the republican movement in Northern Ireland have a duty to be able to convince people that they are not. We and the Irish Government, however, are absolutely at one in seeing no distinction within the republican movement between the IRA and Sinn Fein.

David Burnside: I welcome the debate in the House to discuss privileges. Although many of us feel, emotionally, that we want to punish those involved in criminality, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will vote to restore equality in relation to membership of the House, so that if one does not come here and swear or affirm allegiance, one does not become a special grade of MP. It is time that we restored equality for all Members of the House.
	I am confused: IRA-Sinn Fein are responsible for the biggest bank robbery in history. The Secretary of State is advised that Martin McGuinness, the chief negotiator, and the president are members of the army council. He knows that the rest of the army council of the IRA includes Slab Murphy, the finance director, Ferris and the rest. Can he explain to the House why there has been not one arrest or interview by detectives within the PSNI or the Garda Siochana of any member of the army council of the Provisional IRA, or not one serious investigation by the Assets Recovery Agency into the illegal financing of a political party that will give it an unfair electoral advantage, in a few months' time, in the Westminster and local government elections, against the rest of us who must obey the law and adhere to the rulings of the Electoral Commission in this country?

Paul Murphy: First, in terms of the opportunity that will exist in the House in some weeks' time, the hon. Gentleman, and any Member of the House, will be in a position to express the point of view that he just did in the context of a debate. I am sure that he will do so. In terms of people being arrested or interviewed, obviously, that is not a matter for me as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland but a matter for the police. On the Assets Recovery Agency, I said earlier in relation to the Organised Crime Task Force that the Assets Recovery Agency plays a vital part in dealing with organised crime, and I take the point that he makes.

Several Hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Points of Order

Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was explained in the statement by the Home Secretary that the anti-terrorism Bill that we are to consider tomorrow will be made available to the House, but under the House's ordinary rules it will not be made available until the close of both statements at 2.30. Notwithstanding that, I understand that the Government have held a briefing for journalists, which started at 1.45 pm, in which the entire contents of that legislation, which have not been imparted to the Housethe House has had no opportunity to look at the documentwere made available to them. Is it in order that the Government should behave in this way, in complete contempt of the courtesy that they owe to this House?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Home Secretary has already made a statement to the House this afternoon. I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I have no doubt that Mr. Speaker will make some investigations into his complaint.

Tom Levitt: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At 7.45 pm on Tuesday 8 February, the House agreed to suspend the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) for two weeks. Could you ask the hon. Member in question to come to the House and explain why he thought that he was in order to sit in this Chamber during the Home Secretary's statement and seek to participate in that debate, even though the two weeks has clearly not elapsed?

Madam Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, the two-week period ended last night.

BILLS PRESENTED

Prevention of Terrorism

Mr. Secretary Clarke, supported by The Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Peter Hain and Ms Hazel Blears, presented a Bill to provide for the making against individuals involved in terrorism-related activity of orders imposing obligations on them for purposes connected with preventing or restricting their further involvement in such activity; to make provision about appeals and other proceedings relating to such orders; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 61].

Crossrail

Mr. Secretary Darling, supported by The Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Margaret Beckett, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Secretary Tessa Jowell, Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. Tony McNulty, presented a Bill to make provision for a railway transport system running from Maidenhead, in the County of Berkshire, and Heathrow Airport, in the London Borough of Hillingdon, through central London to Shenfield, in the County of Essex, and Abbey Wood, in the London Borough of Greenwich; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 62].

Regulation of Laser Eye Surgery

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate laser eye surgery.
	Last year, in the United Kingdom, more than 100,000 laser eye procedures were carried out. It is important to understand that laser eye surgery, in the hands of those who are properly trained and who have proper after-care and pre-care services, is a safe procedure; indeed, it is an entirely safe procedure. It is also important to realise that the United Kingdom is ahead in such procedures and is rapidly building a reputation for high-quality surgery of this kind.
	Some time ago, however, the House of Commons Tea Room, which has been the venue for many important meetings, was the establishment in which my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) decided at a breakfast meeting that there were some real worries in this type of surgery. They decided, sensibly, first, to call a public meeting within the precincts of the House, but secondly, to set up a series of meetings, which turned into an ad hoc committee procedure to examine closely the question of making the United Kingdom the safest place in the world to have laser eye surgery.
	I was lucky enough to take part in that procedure a little way down the line, but I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton, North and for Norwich, North, both of whom initiated a campaign that was undoubtedly needed. They did so because once they had called the meetings in the House of Commons, it became clear that not only members of the profession but members of the industry and the general public were very concerned. They had particular worries about advertising practices relating to laser eye surgery, standards of safety and regulation, and training of ophthalmologists and optometrists.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North will forgive me if I say that because he was not terribly well at one point, he was not able to sit through all the sessions that we arranged. I am enormously grateful to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) and to Professor John Marshall, who did a great deal of work on the report. Without them it would not have been completed, and would certainly not have achieved the quality and depth that I think we were able to produce. I think I represented the vox pop: anyone who examines the qualifications of each Committee member will see that I was the only one with neither a scientific nor a medical qualification.
	We took a huge amount of very interesting evidence, some of which I found a bit disturbing. It became clear that we as a Parliament, and certainly the Government, should be looking closely at an industry that is growing exponentially, not just because of improvements in laser eye surgery generally but owing to the extension and development of new machinery. The report was given a great deal of secretarial support by Carl Zeiss UK, to which I pay tribute. At no point did it seek to influence either the choice of witnesses or the content of the report, but it underwrote our activities and gave us enormous help.
	Our report made a number of recommendations. We said that in patient counselling, advertising, patient consent forms and training there were gaps that worried us. We said that in the context of surgeon suitability and qualifications, we feared that members of the public were not automatically receiving the protections to which they were entitled, and highlighted areas in which such problems had arisen. We also pointed out that the matter could be dealt with in a number of ways, one or two of which I will identify now.
	There is no doubt that we need stricter guidelines regulating clinical practice. Guidelines must be monitored and policed by the Healthcare Commission. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence published a report recently, and its guidelines could set a useful standard; but sanctions must be available when clinics flout the guidelines. It is essential for each clinic to have a senior consultant with specialist knowledge, training and experience in cornea and refractive techniques. He or she must take ultimate responsibility for patients in a system similar to that currently operating in the national health service, whereby NHS doctors receiving training report to a consultant.
	We considered it important for all surgeons in this specialty to be suitably trained to an agreed standard. We decided that the Royal College of Ophthalmologists should approve and certify a training board procedure enabling us to maintain standards of care. It is essential to have a United Kingdom-wide training programme for ophthalmologists, and the RCO should approve individual clinic and manufacturer system-based training. It was clear that not all general practitioners were sufficiently well-informed, and that GPs should be offered a chance to expand their training and information. That would help them to know which referral and other procedures should be recommended.
	Laser surgery, although enormously successful, is obviously not suitable for all patients. It is therefore vital for procedures for accepting suitable patients to be standardised and clarified. Only patients who meet defined criteria should be routinely treated. Safe operating parameters should be set, and the position should be made clear to patients in whose case adverse conditions and syndromes could lead to complications and increase the risks associated with laser eye surgery.
	Clinics must be regulated. We laid down a series of parameters within which we thought that that could be done. We felt that the Healthcare Commission should have the power and authority to enforce regulations, and that clinics or surgeons failing to comply with those standards should be removed from the RCO's refractive surgery list. Those responsibilities would stretch the existing level of training and resources, but that, we concluded, was a demand that should be met by the state. The Healthcare Commission should be responsible for annual follow-up checks for laser safety, approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
	It became clear to us that laser eye surgery was a useful and sensible procedure when properly carried out and organised, and when in the hands of correctly trained people. It has a lot to offer the House of Commons, but it is essential, before we experience serious problems, for the House as a matter of urgency to produce a useful and protracted scheme that will defend the interests of patients and the profession. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will support us in ensuring that such surgery is regulated. It is important, indeed fairly urgent, and the House of Commons should take that responsibility now.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Frank Cook, Dr. Ian Gibson, Dr.   Richard Taylor, Dr. Jenny Tonge, Dr. Andrew Murrison and Peter Bottomley.

Regulation of Laser Eye Surgery

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody accordingly presented a Bill to regulate laser eye surgery: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March, and to be printed [Bill 63].

Social Security

Alan Johnson: I beg to move,
	That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2005.

Alan Johnson: I am satisfied that both orders are compatible with the European convention on human rights.
	The uprating order will, as usual, increase most national insurance benefits by the retail prices index amount of 3.1 per cent. and most income-related benefits according to the Rossi index, by 1 per cent. The guaranteed minimum pensions increase order sets out the amount by which contracted-out occupational pension schemes must increase members' guaranteed minimum pensions which accrued between 1988 and 1997. Where the annual increase in the RPI exceeds 3 per cent., the guaranteed minimum pensions indexation requirement is capped at that level under the primary legislation. This year's order therefore provides for an increase of 3 per cent.
	This year's uprating adds nearly 3 billion of extra Government spending, tackling poverty by helping those most in need. Of the 2.1 billion extra for pensioners, over half a billion pounds580 millionis above-inflation spending.
	Since 1997, our total annual spending on financial support for children has increased by over 10 billion in real terms. That is in stark contrast to the 1980s and 1990s, when child benefit was frozen for three years and pensioners received only inflation-level increases, even as social security spending spiralled out of control.
	When the Conservative party was in power, unemployment twice hit 3 million and the numbers on incapacity benefit trebled to 2.6 million. By 1997, one in five families had no one in work and one in three children were growing up in poverty. There are now more people in jobs than ever before. Unemployment is at its lowest for 30 years, with long-term youth unemployment 90 per cent. lower than in 1997. We now spend 5 billion less on unemployment benefits than we did in 1997. With almost three-quarters of the working-age population in work, our employment rate is the highest of any of the G8 countries.
	Already our new deal for lone parents has helped nearly 300,000 lone parents into work and helped to increase their employment rate to 55.8 per cent.a 10 percentage point increase since 1997with 200,000 fewer lone parents claiming income support and nearly 1 million lone parents now in work. However, we need to do more. We know that work is the best way to lift families out of poverty and nine out of 10 lone parents tell us that they want to work, but to enable them to do that they need to have affordable and accessible child care.
	We are committed to providing over 2 million sustainable child care places by 2010 and a Sure Start centre in every community across Englandan increase from 600 to 3,500 over the same period.

Steve Webb: As the Secretary of State will know, this afternoon is an opportunity for thinking big picture about the approach to the welfare state. He mentions child care. Governments usually say that parents should decide what is best for their children. However, he has set a 70 per cent. target for lone parents getting back into work. What if 70 per cent. of lone parents do not come to the answer that he wants them to come to?

Alan Johnson: I would not say that we have set a target of 70 per cent. What we have pointed out is that the European Union average is 70 per cent. We have said that one part of our objective of raising the employment rate from 74.9 per cent. to 80 per cent. would be moving another 300,000 lone parents into work. I really believe that lone parents, if they get the right help and support, are pleased to do that. I will have more to say later about how we intend to tackle that, without interfering with the issue of choice for lone parents.

Andrew Selous: I was under the impression, the last time the Select Committee on Work and Pensions visited Brussels, that there was a European target of 70 per cent. of lone parents to be in the work force, to which the Government had signed up. Can the Secretary of State elucidate on that point?

Alan Johnson: There are so many targets in so many places, sometimes we all get a bit confused. The Lisbon process looked to get 70 per cent of working-age people in the European Union back to work. We achieved that some time ago. I am not aware of a specific 70 per cent. target in the European Union. If there is such a target, it has been met, because that is the average throughout the rest of the European Union. For various reasons, we have more lone parents in this country than most other European Union countries, but I see no reason why we cannot achieve that level.

David Willetts: As the Secretary of State said, there are many targets but, to confirm the point that was made by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), I think that what we are talking about is the target in the Secretary of State's own departmental five-year plan. That is a target and that is where the 70 per cent. appears.

Alan Johnson: Good, I always welcome clarification from people who read our documents very carefully

David Willetts: Has the Secretary of State read the document?

Alan Johnson: I wrote it.
	Child care is not enough on its own. Lone parents need support in looking for work and they need to know that they will get a clear financial gain from work. Building on the success of the new deal for lone parents and work-focused interviews, the work search premium, which we are currently piloting, means that lone parents who have been on benefits for a year or more are offered an extra 20 per week for up to six months in return for agreeing actively and consistently to look for work.
	Our in-work credit, which we are also piloting, means 40 per week for a year for those who move into work of more than 16 hours a week. That is paid on top of any out-of- work benefits that the lone parent may be entitled to and so represents a clear financial gain from work.
	From this April, we are pulling together all the existing support for lone parents into an integrated package. The pathways to work for lone parents pilots will run in five districts: Bradford, Dudley and Sandwell, Leicestershire, north London and south-east London. Those pilots encapsulate our approach of rights and responsibilities, guaranteeing child care support, a clear financial gain from work and the ongoing help of trained professional advisers, all in return for a responsibility to engage more intensively with our employment advisers.
	The ongoing professional support from trained personal advisers has been key to our success in increasing the lone parent employment rate. That new single package of initiatives gives our advisers the tools that they need to offer lone parents clearer, stronger and more comprehensive support than ever before. Additionally, for those with older children who are at secondary school, we will pilot automatic payment of an activity premium, on top of all existing benefits, conditional on taking up agreed activity to help them to move into work.

David Taylor: The Secretary of State referred to the pilot in my county. Can he tell the House at what stage he would envisage it being rolled out to other parts of the country because I fully expect and hope that it will prove to be a success in the terms that he has described?

Alan Johnson: We do not have any plans yet on the pathways to work for lone parents beyond the introduction of the pilots. We will see how the pilots go. In terms of pathways to work for people on incapacity benefit, we already have plans to roll that out to a third of the country.
	From April, child tax credit will be increased in line with the growth in earnings while the maximum eligible child care costs covered by the working tax credit will increase from 135 to 175 per week for one child, and from 200 to 300 per week for two or more children.
	We are extending paid maternity leave, so that instead of the 14 weeks of 1997, it will rise from six months to nine months in April 2007.

David Willetts: Before the Secretary of State leaves the subject of tax credit and working tax credit, are he and his Department making any representations to the Treasury and to the Inland Revenue about the continuing problems that families face, especially as supposed overpayments of working tax credit and child tax credit are being reclaimed by the Inland Revenue? Is he aware of the distress that that is causing families? Is it causing them to approach the social fund? What is his Department doing to tackle the problem?

Alan Johnson: We are in close liaison with the Treasury over the issue for obvious reasonsit links with our joint objectives on tackling child poverty. The Treasury's view is clear. As in all tax matters, adjustments are made in the following tax year without putting a burden on individuals. Indeed, there is the opportunity to discount the overpayment if that would bring unnecessary concern to individuals. That approach is no different from how every previous Government approached such issues.
	The maximum maternity pay and child benefits for mothers at home with their first baby will have risen by 5,000 in real terms since 1997. Therefore, we are committed to supporting parents both in fulfilling their parenting role and in fulfilling their aspirations in the workplace. With our record investment in the new deal and Jobcentre Plus, we have transformed the UK labour market. There are now 2 million more people in jobs than in 1997 and we have seen increased employment rates for lone parents, ethnic minorities, the low skilled and people aged 50 and over.

Steve Webb: The Secretary of State is being characteristically generous in giving way. He mentioned fulfilling family responsibilities and career aspirations, and a classic case would be that of a woman who wants to go back to work and thinks that a family memberperhaps her sistermight be the best person to look after her young child. She can pay a complete stranger to do so and get thousands of pounds from the taxpayer, but if her sister puts in substantial hours each week caring for that child, there is no state support whatever. Does he think that the right balance to strike?

Alan Johnson: Such matters always have to be kept under review, and someincluding many Labour Membershold the view that family members should be included in the scheme and given such support. That said, Members have to accept that although we have made huge progress, certain issues still need to be looked at, so that we have a fairer system and meet the goal of providing proper child care, to allow parents to return to work.
	For the fifth successive year, we are freezing non-dependant deductions to relieve the pressure on low-income parents who are housing their adult children. As a result of our roll-out of pathways to work for incapacity benefit claimants, together with the proposed reforms that I laid before the House when we published the five-year strategy, sickness and disability need no longer mean permanent withdrawal from work. In the pathways areas, six times as many people are getting back-to-work help, and twice as many are recorded as entering jobs as in the rest of the country.
	Overall, new claims for incapacity benefit are down by one third since 1997, and the employment rate for disabled people seriously challenges the old stereotypes. For the first time, a disabled person is more likely to be in work than out of work. Combined with our disability discrimination legislation, such changes are transforming disabled people's rights and opportunitiesa far cry from 1997, when, after 18 years of Conservative Government, they effectively had only two civil rights. Both those rights were granted reluctantly, after at least 14 attempts by Back Benchers from all parts of the House to introduce relevant legislation.
	Most Conservative Members may wish to abolish the new deal, and talk incessantly about cuts, but the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell)unfortunately, he is not in his placerecently demonstrated his enthusiastic support for our policies while performing the only known constructive cut implemented by a Conservative politician in living memory. He formally cut the ribbon on a new Jobcentre Plus in his own constituency, and we were very pleased to see him there.
	We are determined to ensure that everyone has the opportunity and incentive to work. We know that work helps to lift people out of poverty and to prepare for their retirement, but it is also the best pensions policy. Through the Pensions Act 2004, we have taken steps to bolster confidence in pension saving, helping people to make informed choices about saving more and working longer. The ground-breaking Pension Protection Fund, which will operate from this April, will revolutionise the security of occupational pension saving for some 10 million members of defined benefit schemes, and the financial assistance scheme will offer some help to those who have lost the most in the past. We are the first Government to take action to deal with the problems of thousands of pensioners who were deprived of their savings and lost their occupational pensions along with their jobs.
	Although in many cases, the trustees of such schemes are not yet able to provide detailed information on the scale of individual losses, we have always wanted to make clear as early as possible the position of older workers, who have the least chance to make up the shortfall. Even though we are still collecting information, we now know enough to reassure those who will be within three years of their scheme pension age on 14 May 2004 that they will get no less than 80 per cent. of their core promised pension.
	We have already committed ourselves to reviewing the financial assistance scheme after three years, and Government funding is already fixed for the current spending review period, up to and including 200708. But as with all our spending plans, we will review FAS funding in the next spending review, alongside other spending priorities.

Frank Field: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and thank him for it, but my welcome will be as nothing compared with that offered by many of our constituents. However, can he give us a little more information on the review that, I am thankful to say, he now seems to have taken on? We were originally promised a review of the scheme's structure, but is he now saying, in the light of the commitment offered to those about to reach retirement age, that there will be a funding review after three years? That would open the way to using the unclaimed assets of banks and building societiesand with that in mind, will he make available in the Library a document outlining how far the Government have got in negotiating with those important bodies?

Alan Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right: this news has been well received throughout the country by those closest to retirement, who were extremely worried. On his latter point, I suggest that he attend the next Treasury Question Time and ask about unclaimed assets. We will begin our review during the next spending reviewit will commence in 2006, ready for the next three-year periodand as part of that process we will look at FAS finances.

Richard Burden: I, too, welcome today's announcement, which is certainly good news for workers and retired workers at Kalamazoo, for the Cheney pensioners, for UEF employees and for members of the Birmingham Mint scheme. However, will my right hon. Friend give a little more detail on the financial review, which is indeed very good news? If it is to meet the needs of people who are a little more than three years away from retirement, it will have to start sooner than in three years' time. Otherwise, there will be a time lag between their reaching retirement age and their receiving the kind of support that those affected by today's announcement will receive. Will the review at least start within that time, even if it cannot conclude within it?

Alan Johnson: I can assure my hon. Friend that the review will start in 2006.
	Perhaps I should say a little more about the FAS scheme before moving on to other issues. It will apply to pension schemes that started wind-up from 1 January 1997 until April this year. That was made clear in a previous statement, but it is as well to record it here. Depending on the pension age for their particular scheme and the date that wind-up started, members getting the 80 per cent. that we are announcing today will currently be aged anywhere between 57 and 73, so today's announcement gives real extra security to the significant number of people who are already in, or close to, retirement, and who face the most serious situation and, often, the biggest losses. Even after applying the minimum payment rule of 10 a week, we would expect some 15,000 scheme members to be included.

Sandra Osborne: I add my voice to those who acknowledged the review's importance. On 22 January 2002, I initiated a Westminster Hall debate on behalf of the UEF employees who lost their pensions when the company went into receivership, and I very much welcome the substantial help that the Government are deliveringas promisedfor pensioners whose need is most pressing. However, will the monthly payments made to them through the financial assistance scheme be index-linked, as their pensions would have been?

Alan Johnson: No, they will not. I appreciate that the scheme to which my hon. Friend refers would have been index-linked, but many FAS schemes are not. We cannot make such a commitment, but we are making it clear that the money will be paid as a pension rather than as an annuity; indeed, it was clear on talking to my hon. Friend's constituents that that was a very important issue. Their feeling was that the Government should bear the risk, and that we should not allow any of that money to be diluted by diverting it elsewhere; rather, all of it should be directed towards assistance payments to them. However, I am afraid that I cannot give a helpful answer on the index-linking issue.
	For today's pensioners, we have taken radical action to tackle pensioner poverty, which was the real pensions crisis that we faced when we came into office in 1997. From April, the retirement pension will go up by 2.45 a week for single pensioners and 3.95 a week for couples.

Kevin Brennan: Before my right hon. Friend entirely leaves the issue of the financial assistance scheme, may I ask him a question? He said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) that it would benefit 15,000 pensioners who are three years away from receiving their pensions. Does he agree that 15,000 people will benefit, who would have received nothing without the financial assistance scheme? Does he acknowledge that many of us would like that sort of substantial assistance to be made available after the three-yearly review to people who are coming through to retirement at that time?

Alan Johnson: I agree that this is good news for people who thought that they would receive no assistance whatever from 1 January 1997. What we are doing is in tune with many other achievements in government that had seemed to drift past, such as trawlermen's compensation. That was sought for 25 years; the men received nothing from the Conservative Government, but we provided it. Coal miners who had vibration white finger provide another example of a case in which we awarded compensation for the first time. Still another example is the Aberfan fund. The Coal Board took money from Aberfan families to clear the tips that killed their children, and nothing was done in 18 years, but we restored it after just three months in government. We have a good track record in dealing with these claims. [Interruption.] Conservative Members should know which Government provided financial assistance and compensation. Those groups received nothing but a closed door and a shake of the head from the Conservative Government.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) for his work, particularly in respect of Allied Steel and Wire. He played an important role in ensuring that this scheme was established and that a certain level of assistance was made available. As soon as we know the full position, and once the regulations have been laid, we will allow six months for this group of people to make their claims. We can then move on to extending the scheme to people beyond the current group. At that stage, when the full information is before us, we can have a useful further exchange.
	Since 2000, pensioners have seen a 7 per cent. real terms increase in their retirement pension as a result of our above inflation increases. Overall, between 199697 and 200203, average net pensioner incomes grew by 19 per cent., while average net earnings grew by 12 per cent. The poorest pensioners have seen their incomes grow at similar rates to those of the richest pensioners. For example, incomes of the poorest fifth of pensioner couples have grown by 14 per cent. compared with the incomes of the richest fifth, which have grown by 11 per cent.

David Taylor: The Government's achievements in tackling pensioner poverty have been remarkable and laudable, but is not most pensioner poverty focused on older women? Is it not the case that more than nine out of 10 men eventually become entitled to the full basic state pension in their own right, based on their own contributions, while fewer than one in eight women are so entitled? Would it not be a good idea to extend the full basic pension to everyone of pensionable age by extending the contribution credit system to allow for those who have had part-time or low-paid jobs, or caring and other domestic responsibilities?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is probably aware that of the 2.7 million pensioners living in abject poverty when we came into government, two thirds were women. That is reflected in the figures on pension credit. Of 3.2 million individuals receiving pension credit, 2.1 million are women. He is right that this issue must be resolved. Various ways have been proposed to achieve that, including the patching up system that he suggests. We are determined to tackle the problem, which cannot be allowed to continue. It is a scandalous situation, and we need to look further into which proposals to adopt in order best to tackle the problem.
	Both next year and in the spending round to 2008, the pension credit will rise by average earnings. By 2008, there will be 600,000 fewer pensioners in poverty than there would have been if we had followed the policy of the Conservative party and only uprated the guarantee in line with prices. The guarantee credit will rise so that no single pensioner need live on less than 109.45 a week and no couple on less than 167.05 a week. More than 3.2 million pensioners are now in receipt of pension credit, with take-up strongest among the very poorest.

Michael Weir: In view of the Minister's figures on pension credit, what is his estimate of the take-up among those entitled to it in the coming financial year? One of the main problems with it is that a significant number of people do not take up their entitlement.

Alan Johnson: I was about to make the point that the guarantee take-up rates are running at 80 per cent., and for single women in this group, the take-up could be as high as 90 per cent. What we have done until now is publish the take-up figures for all the different elementsguarantee credit, savings credit and the combination of the twoin one figure. We are all keen to ensure that the poorest pensioners receive this money to lift them out of poverty, so we are concentrating on that particular element. There is every indication that we are being extremely successful, and are ahead of our own aspirations for attracting the poorest pensioners to pension credit.
	As a result of all the tax and benefit measures introduced since 1997, the average pensioner household will be 1,350 per year better off in 200506 than it would have been under the 1997 system, while the poorest third will be 1,900 per year better off. In total, an extra 10 billion will be spent on pensioners in 200506 compared with the 1997 system7 billion more than an earnings link would have given them, with almost half of the 10 billion extra spending going to the poorest third of pensioners.
	As well as targeting our help at the poorest, we have also done more for all pensioners than an earnings link would allow. We have made remarkable strides in tacking the pernicious pensioner poverty that we inherited in 1997, and we will continue to make it our priority until we have eradicated it. We reject proposals that would see the poorest pensioners fall back into penury.
	By supporting people in work and providing financial security for those who cannot work, we have lifted 2.1 million children and 1.8 million pensioners out of absolute poverty since 1997. Our uprating measures continue our commitment and progress towards a fair and inclusive society of opportunity and independence for all. I commend the orders to the House.

David Willetts: I welcome the debate and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for setting out the Government's proposals on the uprating of benefits, which we will not oppose. We always wait to see whether the Liberal Democrats decide to oppose the increase in the value of the pension, but perhaps they are not going to repeat that mistake this year[Interruption.] I am being urged not to provoke the Liberal Democrats to carrying out such a perverse act.
	We welcome the extra benefits and there is added drama to today's debate. The Secretary of State has chosen to debate the pension uprating on the day that the Conservatives launch the pensioners chapter of our manifesto. Of course I realise, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it would be out of order to take the House through all the imaginative proposals in that document[Hon. Members: Go on.]. I am being tempted, but must resist. I would, however, like to question the Secretary of State on some of the points that he raised. As the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) rightly said, we have an opportunity to find out the strategy behind the various specific announcements.
	It is frustrating when the Secretary of State makes grand and sometimes refreshing statements outside the House about how everything needs to be changed because matters cannot carry on as they are, yet comes before the House with a wholly conventional uprating statement in which it is difficult to detect any movement towards the necessary reform.
	Of the pension credit, the Secretary of State said that
	we should not talk in euphemisms. It is a means test.[Official Report, 13 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 302.]
	He also said that it would be crazy to say that it did not act as a disincentive to some people. He has also said:
	The Government still has a take-up problem on pension credit.
	Those reflections show that the Secretary of State realised that there was a problem with mass means-testing. The Government are taking the benefit system in that direction, so it is sad that none of those reservations could be detected in his statement today.
	New estimates for benefit take-up rates were issued recently. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is unacceptable for the rates to remain so low? The figures go only as far as 200203, but they show a take-up range among pensioner couples for the minimum income guarantee, as it then was, of between 55 and 70 per cent. Does he accept that that is very low indeed? He often tells us not to worry because the poorest pensioners are claiming, but does he also accept that the figures for the eligible non-recipients are very worrying too? In 200203, 62 per cent. of ENRsthat is, pensioners entitled to means-tested benefits but not claiming themwere below the poverty line of 60 per cent. of medium income, as set by the Government. The problem is that poor pensioners do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled.
	In light of recent remarks by the Deputy Prime Minister, will the Secretary of Stateor the Minister for Pensions, when he winds up the debatecomment on the extraordinarily low figures for the take-up of council tax benefit? Does he realise that one reason why pensioners in particular feel the burden of council tax so badly is that many do not claim the council tax benefit to which they are entitled? The take-up range of that benefit among pensioners is, according to the Government's latest estimates, between 56 and 62 per cent. That is shockingly low.
	For owner-occupiers, many of whom are pensioners, the council tax benefit take-up is in the range of 37 to 42 per cent. I should be happy to be corrected, but I believe that that is the lowest take-up rate for any known benefit. It is very poor indeed, so what are the Government going to do to improve people's access to that benefit? One reason behind our proposal for a council tax rebate is that it is clear that means-tested benefits are not getting through to many of the pensioners and others who need them. There was no fresh thinking this afternoon in respect of the problem of take-up.
	Outside the House, the Secretary of State has also said:
	We have to bite the bullet and look at the state pension system, certainly for the longer term, so that if you do a lifetime's work it will deliver a pension above the basic level of means-tested support.
	Again, today's announcement on the uprating of benefits does nothing to achieve that strategic objective. There is a general consensus in many parts of the pensions debate that people should have a pension above the basic level of means-tested support, but nothing that the Secretary of State said today takes us any way towards that.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman's strategy for getting pensioners off means-testing is intellectually coherent, as it is to raise pensions in line with earnings, and to raise the means test in line with prices. This afternoon, the Secretary of State confirmed that the pension credit will rise with earnings until 2008. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his party would increase the pension credit by less than that?

David Willetts: I am grateful to have the opportunity to make it clear that we accept that the pension credit should rise with earnings according to the time scale and on the basis that the Government have set out. When I costed our original proposal on increasing the basic state pension in accordance with earnings, I was careful not to make any assumptions that involved taking money from the pension credit uprating. We would also increase the pension credit in the way that the Secretary of State set out in his speech today.

Alan Johnson: Consensus!

David Willetts: It is certain that the Opposition would not reduce pensioner incomes below the pension credit uprating that the Secretary of State set out. I am grateful for the opportunity to make that clear.
	I want to ask the Secretary of State about his thinking on the future of the pension system. He has made bold and radical statements outside the House, but hon. Members would be pleased to hear him say something in the House about the future, and about the possibility, for example, that a citizen's pension will be introduced. It was reported in The Sunday Times that he was considering ideas for a citizen's pension payable to each individual pensioner, male and female alike, on the same basis. Is that true? If so, would it be an entirely individualised system? It would also be interesting to hear what the Liberal Democrats have to say about that.
	Moreover, it would be very interesting to hear from the Secretary of State, or the Minister for Pensions, what are the Government's thoughts about a citizen's pension. A system under which every pensioner received an individualised state pension would be very expensive indeed. In a written question on 7 September last year, the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) asked for an estimate of the cost of extending the full basic state pension to all people of pensionable age, regardless of their national insurance contributions. The Minister for Pensions replied that the gross cost in 200506 would be 7.3 billion, and the net cost 5 billion. He said that that would rise over five years to a gross cost of 11.9 billion and a net cost of 8.1 billion. Is that what the Secretary of State is contemplating?
	If the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of something slightly less expensiveand we have read about a figure of 3 billion in this contextdoes he envisage that some money could be saved by paying to couples a pension that is worth less than two individual pensions? That would mean cutting pensions for some couples. Married women who chose to pay the full rate of national insurance contributions in return for a full pension in their own right would get less money than at present. Is that what the Secretary of State proposes?
	I believe that a lower rate for couples has been proposed by the Pensions Policy Institute and by the Liberal Democrats.

Steve Webb: indicated assent.

David Willetts: The hon. Member for Northavon nods, but that proposal would mean that we would have to be very careful about the definition of a couple. In other parts of the benefits system, we are familiar with all sorts of very difficult questions that arise in connection with cohabitation and the penalties incurred when people are in a relationship. Similar questions will arise in respect of pensioners.
	The great solution presented by the citizen's pension therefore raises many practical questions. The Secretary of State has floated the idea often enough outside the House, so I was disappointed that we heard nothing more about it today. I hope that at some point the House will be able to debate the matter, and I would be grateful if the Minister for Pensions will share his thoughts with us in the wind-up. I am sure that we would all enjoy that.
	When it comes to the contributory principle, I am a Blairite. I believe that rights and responsibilities go together. People pay money into the national insurance fund and in return receive a benefit as a reward for their contributions. That seems to me an admirable principle. At the next election, the Conservative party will be the only defender of the contributory principle for pensioners, which the other two parties propose to abolish. I think that those other parties will find their position distinctly uncomfortable as a result.

Steve Webb: It is very good to debate the wider issues, but I want to return to my previous question. The hon. Gentleman replied that both the means test and the pension would be linked to earnings, but his grand vision is to reduce dependence on means-testing. Because the pension is smaller than the means-testing, increasing both by the same percentage would mean that the absolute gap would grow. How does he reconcile that?

David Willetts: We do not want any pensioners to worry that the uprating of their benefits under a future Conservative Government would be any lower than what the Government propose today. We want the basic state pension to increase in line with earnings, which is why I have focused on take-up. Improving take-up would help those 1.6 million pensioners entitled to the pension credit who do not claim it. They are the people who need to be helped above all. Our policy reaches the pensioners that the other parties' policies do not reach, by extending the benefit, on a universal basis, to all pensioners who have made their contributions.

Alan Johnson: The debate is thoroughly enjoyable and linking the pension credit and the basic state pension with earnings will avoid the arguments about floating loads of people off means-testing. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that his commitment to raising the basic state pension in line with earnings is for only four years? It would take 14 years to get the basic state pension to the level of the pension credit, so does that not mean that he will have to retain a version of the pension creditfor which he has professed his enthusiasm this afternoonfar beyond 2008?

David Willetts: We have set out our plans for increasing the basic state pension at the same rate as the increase in earnings during the lifetime of the next Parliament. Provided that we can continue to identify the necessary savingsI am confident that we canwe would continue to increase the basic state pension at the same rate as earnings with the aim of reducing gradually the spread of means-tested benefits. Under the Secretary of State's approach, the problem will get worse and worse. We would, initially, at least stop it from becoming worse, and we would then want to improve the situation. We envisage continuing to identify savings to enable us to continue to increase the basic state pension at the same rate as earnings. In the manifesto produced at the end of   the first Conservative Parliamenta marvellous prospectwe would set out proposals to show how we would continue to fund the increase in the basic state pension at the same rate as earnings rather than prices. If the House wants to discuss that today, I would very much enjoy that debate.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman was in confessional mode a few moments ago and confession is good for the soul, if not for opinion poll ratings and electoral prospects. Will he confess to the House that his party would abandon the state second pension and, with it, the opportunity for millions of low-paid workers, disabled people and women to build up a decent pension? Does that show a commitment to the contributory principle?

David Willetts: There is a problem with the state second pensionor S2Pwhich is not unlike the problem with the basic state pension that we are trying to tackle. If means-tested benefits are linked to earnings in the long term, it is not clear that S2P would help many people, because many would be on pension credit.
	We do not require any savings on S2P to deliver our earnings link for the basic state pension in our first term. I have made it clear that, during our first term, we would look at the future of S2P and whether it should be at a flat rate. I should be interested to hear from Ministers what their thinking is. At one point, they said that it would become a flat rate, but they seem to have lost their nerve. We would also consider whether we can incorporate S2P into a higher basic state pension. We would like to do that, but these are technical matters and we would not need to do that to finance our increase in the basic state pension during our first term.

Kevin Brennan: Given that all parts of the United Kingdom are expected to contribute to the savings that the hon. Gentleman says he can use to create the new benefit for pensioners and, as a believer in the contributory principle, why is he limiting the new council tax benefit to England?

David Willetts: Council tax is a devolved matter for Scotland and Wales. We have set out carefully costed proposals for the earnings link of the basic state pension to show how that can be delivered. It does not involve savings on S2P, taking money from an earnings-linked pension credit to put into a price-linked pension credit, or any savings affecting Wales or Scotland particularly. We announced our costings 18 months ago and they still stand.

Anne Begg: I want to be clear about what savings the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Is he talking about the 35 billion of savings that the Conservatives hope to make throughout all Departments and that when they have found those savings, pensioners may receive extra, but only after all those savings have been made?

David Willetts: We announced our policy of increasing the basic state pension at the same rate as earnings, not prices, in autumn 2003before the David James exercisewith carefully identified savings. We said that the new deal is not working and that remains my view. Abolition of the new deal and replacing it with something more effective is one saving. Others were also identified. The figures in our original proposal stand and are independent of the David James exercise. They do not depend on that exercise and were set out clearly when we announced our policy. I am grateful for this opportunity to make it clear that the savings never required money to be taken from an earnings-linked pension credit and putting it into some other form of benefit. I was careful not to assume that.

Kevin Brennan: Is the hon. Gentleman saying, therefore, that part of the savings that he says his party will collect and use to pay for the new council tax benefit that they are proposing only for England will generate a Barnett consequence for Scotland and Wales, which the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly can use in any way they please?

David Willetts: Council tax is a devolved matter. We strongly support the proposals that have been put forward by our Scottish and Welsh friends. We know what they want to do. The council tax is an English matter and the basic state pension is a UK matter. I am happy to make that clear.
	I hope that we might hear from the Minister and the hon. Member for Northavon their thoughts on the citizen's pension. It is so easily endorsed as a marvellous solution to all our problems in the pensions system and I would very much like to have some practical answers to questions about how it would work, whether it would be a completely individualised payment, and whether it would be at a lower rate for couples. If the rate for couples is to be lower, on what basis will that be because it is not obvious how that could be done?
	I want to ask the Secretary of State for more information about what he said about the financial assistance scheme. We warned all along that 400 million would not be enough. The Government were lucky to get away with their announcement of 400 million when it was perfectly clear that that was completely inadequate given the scale of the crisis. That is why we supported the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)he is no longer in his placeof using the unclaimed assets of banks properly to replenish these funds.
	It is useful to have the Secretary of State's belated announcement of how the scheme would work, but it will be an ad hoc arrangement. In his written statement this morning, he merely set out the basis for people aged more than 62he gave a slightly wider age range in his speech. People who are not yet in the final three years before retirement now have several more years of uncertainty before they know where they stand. Does that not tell him that there is something wrong with the fundamental design of the FAS and that it would have been better to have considered properly replenishing the funds of the pension schemes involved? Why was he unable to give any indication today of his thinking about how he would help the majority of people who have already seen their pensions wound up and who are already concerned about their financial future? It is not acceptable to leave people who are more than three years from retirement in a state of complete uncertainty about how the FAS may or may not assist them. I hope that we shall hear some more information about that from the Minister of State.
	It would also be helpful to have an update on the latest estimate of the number of people affected by pension wind-ups. If the Minister can provide a list of a large number of company pension schemes that are covered, it should presumably also be possible to offer an update of the figure of 65,000, which has been around for some time. It would be useful and interesting to hear his latest assessment of the total number of people who are likely to be eligible. As the 65,000 estimate has had to be revised, are the Government hinting at having to increase the scale of the 400 million total, too?
	What about the interaction between the financial assistance scheme and the Pension Protection Fund? Can the Minister tell us more about that? What would happen, for example, if a scheme wound up before April 2005? It is possible that there could still be large schemes in those circumstances. At what point does the FAS stop and the PPF take over? The Minister has caused considerable confusion on that point over the past six months, so it would be helpful to hear his comments about that.
	I hope that it will not be too outrageous if I speak briefly about the other motionon guaranteed minimum pensions, often regarded as a technical subject for nerds and anoraks[Interruption.] We will not name names. In practice, the subject affects large numbers of people who contracted out of the state earnings-related pension schemenow the S2Pinto a funded company pension scheme and who may find that there is not even enough money in the company pension scheme to pay the guaranteed minimum pension to which they believed they were entitled as their minimum insurance, so to speak, when they contracted out. Ministers sometimes talk as though there was no pension insurance before the PPF, but the guaranteed minimum pension is in fact a type of insurance for people who contracted out of the state system.
	People who contracted out and whose company pension schemes are winding up are experiencing many problems in securing the basic GMP. I hope that the Minister will comment briefly on that when he winds up. He will recall that in one of our least exciting parliamentary question and answer sessions, I put a question to the Secretary of State on 9 June 2004[Interruption.] It was indeed a classic.
	My question was about deemed buy-backs, which occur when schemes have insufficient assets to secure the guaranteed minimum pension and the Department is asked for full reinstatement of the state pension. There is a strong feeling in the industry that the process of securing the deemed buy-back is slow and cumbersome. When the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions answered me in June, he said that the Inland Revenue had received expressions of interest in deemed buy-back from 59 schemes, 33 schemes had formally requested calculations and eight of those had been issued with the necessary calculations. The crucial sentence in his answer was the final one. He stated:
	As yet no-one is receiving reinstated benefits.[Official Report, 9 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 478W.]
	May we have an update on that?
	There are rumours that one or two real human beings have actually received a payment under the deemed buy-back arrangements. If that were happening, it would be marvellous, but the Minister owes the House a fuller explanation of how deemed buy-backs are working, as well as an explanation of the workings of the GMP. The guaranteed minimum pension is not delivering the security that it was supposed to deliver. Does the Minister agree that it is outrageous that the Inland Revenue issued guidance that schemes could discharge their GMP liabilities by purchasing annuities that would provide an income well below the level of the GMP? In other words, the guaranteed minimum pension has turned out to be neither a guarantee nor a minimum for people who are having to manage on much lower incomes. How can the Minister defend those arrangements?
	What about the idea that has appeared in the pension press that people who have contracted out will be asked whether they have taken out additional voluntary contributions and that, if they have an AVC, it will be included in the calculation of their pension income and they will only be able to buy back into the state system if, even with their AVC, they are still below the level of the GMP? Those are important questions that are at least as relevant for the victims of pension wind-ups as the scale of the FAS. They can appear technical and are easy to gloss over but, between consenting adults, we should all welcome a bit more information from the Minister today.
	I have a few brief questions on some other aspects of the benefits system that are relevant to the uprating statement. We did not hear about the Child Support Agency. We were all fascinated to learn that the chief executive of the CSA was no longer in place. The Secretary of State gave the Select Committee on Work and Pensions the distinct impression that that was so. But the chief executive is still in place, so perhaps the Minister can tell us how the search for his successor is going? When might we see the outgoing chief executive leave the CSA and a replacement arrive? We shall be interested to hear about that.
	I hope, too, that we might hear more about the Government's views on the problem of the 1 million-plus young people who are not studying, working or training. Although the Secretary of State always praises the new deal, if there are now more than 1.1 million young people who are not working, studying or traininga higher figure than in May 1997surely that suggests, even to those on the Government Benches, who always go out of their way to speak so complacently about the new deal, that there is a problem. Will the Minister for Pensions reflect on why even more young people are part of the lost generationneither working, nor studying, nor trainingthan in May 1997? Is it perhaps the case that the arrival of employment zones is a recognition by the Government that the new deal is not working, and that employment zones are intended as an alternative to the new deal and pilot a rather different approach? We would greatly welcome hearing from him on that.
	I will not trouble the Minister by inviting him to comment on the announcement last week on the new basis on which the retail prices index would be calculated, although that is also relevant to uprating. I have given him enough technical questions and I hope that, when he responds to the debate, he can find the time to answer them.

Steve Webb: Normally, when I see this annual event coming up on the parliamentary calendar, my heart sinks somewhat. We used to have an entire day of parliamentary debate on the two orders each year, but we started to notice that the debate ran out of steam about halfway through the day. I notice today that there does not appear to be a single Back-Bench Labour MP trying to speak in the entire debate, even though we are talking about 100 billion or so of public expenditure.
	None the less, the debate provides an opportunity, as we observed earlier, to reflect on strategy for reform of the welfare state somewhat more broadly. It has already been a rather revealing afternoon in that respect. In a sense, we are contrasting the three approaches to the issue. The one thing that has emerged this afternoon from the comments made by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) is the issue of linking the pension credit to earnings and the basic state pension to earnings. That seems to me inconsistent with the assertion that 1 million people will be lifted off means-tested benefits. I wonder whether we can get some clarification on that at some point.
	The motions are about the rate of benefits next year and therefore we must start with some discussion of adequacy in benefits. The infamous person coming from Mars to look at our deliberations would see that we were talking about a very thick volume full of different rates for different sorts of people and would assume that those rates were based on something. In fact, they appear to be based on what they used to be, plus a bit. There is no objective, external basis on which we pay certain amounts to different groups. I have heard the Minister for Pensions on the radio saying that this is something that he did not go in for in a big way. However, I wonder whether, in the quiet watches of the night, the Secretary of State might reflect on the fact that, year after year, we have been paying people on, for example, incapacity benefit increases of 70p, 80p and 50p, and their position has been falling further and further behind that of pensioners on pension credit and families with children. There must surely come a point in that process when we say not that enough is enough, but that enough is not enough. In other words, the process of just adding, in this case, a very small percentage increase to incapacity benefit leaves those benefits too small.
	The Secretary of State got a bit cross with me when I accused him, at the time of the uprating statement, of saying that life on incapacity benefit was comfortable. He denied saying it. I went back to Hansard and I found him saying precisely that. He used precisely the analogy in the newspaper report that he used in Hansard when responding for the first time to oral questions. It is quite clear that it is something that someone said to him: being on incapacity benefit is like falling in a ditch and then one starts to get comfortable. That is precisely what he said.

Alan Johnson: At last we get to the origin of the quotation. A representative of the Leonard Cheshire association, who is a paraplegic, said to me and several other people, The problem with incapacity benefit is that it's like fool's gold. They send you away to lie in a ditch, without offering any helping hand, and after a while, lying in the ditch, you start to feel comfortable in it and so you get used to being on benefits. If people think that that is something that I have saidif they think that I said that 74.15 a week is what people can live on comfortablyI am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said just now, because I was puzzled about when I had said that. It was not me who said that; it was a paraplegic who was describing his feeling about being on incapacity benefit.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, but he will accept that that obviously struck a chord with him, because he has repeated it twiceonce in the House, and once to a newspaper. I am trying to make the point that the word comfortable, even in that context, could not possibly be applied to that standard of living. The question is therefore: how long do we continue to increase incapacity benefit? It is a poor benefit, because every year we increase it by 50p or 70p, while pensioners' benefits, family tax credits and benefits for workers increase in line with earning. Childless people on national insurance benefits are therefore left further behind the majority of the population, including pensioners, working families with children and other working people. That is unsustainable in the long term. The Secretary of State has properly admitted that the pension credit is not a long-term answer, and neither is a retail prices-linked incapacity benefit when everything else is earnings-linked. That cannot continue indefinitely.

Kevin Brennan: Should the hon. Gentleman not concentrate on the fact that 80 per cent. of people on incapacity benefit would like to work if they could? Schemes such as the want-to-work scheme in my constituency pays people 60 a week for the first four months that they take a job, 40 for the next four months and 20 for the next four months. If they cannot hold the job down, they can go back on to incapacity benefit. If we could get those people into work we could uprate incapacity benefit for the people left on it in line with earnings or perhaps even above that.

Steve Webb: No one disputes the fact that large numbers of people on incapacity benefit and other disability benefits would like to work. However, every time that the issue is raised in the House, I am struck by the fact that the same number is always cited. Seven years ago, we were told that 1 million disabled people wanted to work, and that number is still cited today. Either the Government are using old research or they have not made any progress on the agenda for seven or eight years, which is a crime. We do not want people to have to claim the benefits in the order if there is a better alternative, but too many people get stuck on them.
	There are anomalies arising from the benefit rates, and I shall deal with two of them. First, the under-25s are in an anomalous position, as people in that age group receive lower rates of means-tested benefits. That derives from an essentially Thatcherite reform which, the hon. Member for Havant will recallI do not know whether his fingerprints are all over itsaid that young people should live with their mums and dads. It used to be the case that householders received more money and non-householders received less, but that was changed so that people aged 25 and over received more money and under-25s received less. Those means-tested benefits carry through into the housing benefit system, so that a 24-year-old who tries to live independentlythey may have been thrown out of the family home or their parents may be unable to cope with them any morereceives less help with their housing than a 25-year-old. I cannot see any justification for that entirely arbitrary cut-off, which has been in existence since 1988. I accept that the Government are not going to say that they will do something about that, but that Tory creation is an anomaly. At the time, the Minister for Pensions was probably working for the Family Policy Studies Centre, and I very much doubt that he thought introducing penalties for the under-25s was a good thing. Does he think that it is a good thing now?
	Another problem affects single, childless people under 25. Many lone parents are single and under 25 when they conceive. For the duration of their pregnancy they are living on the lowest benefit rate in the entire system, of just over 40. That is the environment in which their child grows before it is born, and I do not accept that that is good for the health or welfare of young women who are about to become mothers. There is another anomaly in the linkage of benefits for childless people to the retail prices index and the linkage of pension benefits and so on to earnings. On her 60th birthday, the income of a woman on income support nearly doubles because means-tested benefits have been linked to prices for so long that they have become devalued. Money has been put into pension credit, so there is a huge jump in the benefits available to someone at the age of 60. It is hard to find a rational basis for determining that the 59-year-old woman needs only 50 or so, whereas the 60-year-old woman needs 105. There needs to be some external look at what different sorts of people with different family compositions, different disabilities and so on need to live on, as a benchmarknot so that we can immediately put everyone's money up to the enhanced level, but to identify the groups who are particularly badly done by under the present structure.

David Willetts: The hon. Gentleman is waxing eloquent about the cliff-edge effects on benefit changes at 25 or 65. Will he confirm that under his party's approach to pensions, the gap between the income at age 74 and the income at 75 will gradually get greater and greater?

Steve Webb: Yes, that is correct, on a transitional basis. With pensions, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, one must set a destinationthat is, one decent universal state pension payable to all those over state pension age, linked to earnings, sufficient to lift people clear of the means test and based on citizenship rather than on contributions. Clearly, it is implausible to get there in one go, so on a transitional basis we start with those over 75. As he says, that creates as beneficial cliff edge at 75. The difference is that I do not want that to be a permanent feature of the system, whereas the cliff edge at 25 and the current gap between 59 and 60-year-olds are both permanent features of the system. If the Secretary of State can tell me that those are transitional features that the Government will deal with and get rid of, I shall be delighted to hear it.

David Willetts: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. I understand what he is saying, but moving from 75 to a lower age will get more and more difficult and expensive to do as the gap gets wider. Although he wants to get rid of the cliff edge, it is getting higher as every year passes because the gap between the pension between the ages of 65 and 74 and the pension at age 75 upwards will surely get wider under his approach.

Steve Webb: At the same time, however, there will be growing accruals of second-tier state pension rights as well. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, the goal must be not two grotty state pensions and a failing means test on top, but one decent state pension. That must be where we head.
	I return to the adequacy of benefit, especially for childless people. Because the Government rightly accept that children were very important, they have a child poverty target. Although they consider pensioners important, they do not have a goal of abolishing pensioner poverty, as far as I am aware, or perhaps that is another target in the statement that none of us can remember ever reading. There is no target to abolish poverty among childless people, but surely that matters as well. What are we doing about benefit rates for childless people who are left on benefit? Clearly, if they can get into work, that is great and we will support it, but not all of them will. It would be odd to have a big debate about the rates of benefit for next year without any of us raising the question of their adequacy.
	I shall use two words that are seldom heard in the House: social fund. People on the social fund are, in many ways, the forgotten masses. I strongly suspect that many of them do not vote and are not floating voters. I do not suppose that any of the polling that any of the parties do flags the social fund as a big issue for target voters in marginal seats. In principle, access to cheap credit ought to be a good thing, yet people have accumulated so much debt that hundreds of thousands of them are not living at the benefit rates in the orders, but below those rates, pretty much indefinitely, because they have previously paid for so-called luxuries such as a cooker or a fridge.
	The new Secretary of State has been commendable in the extreme for his willingness to look afresh at issues, but the social fund is one of the longstanding bits of the system that nobody dares poke around at, for fear of what they might find. Should the right hon. Gentleman have the opportunity to implement his agenda in future years, I hope he will have the social fund on his to do list.
	The hon. Member for Havant mentioned take-up. I think I have asked the DepartmentI can never remember whether I actually tabled these questions or whether I just meant toto place in the Library the analysis that underlies the take-up numbers for pension credit that Ministers keep quoting. The Government quote the bits that sound rather good, but do not publish the whole thing. The flip side of an 80 per cent. take-up rate for the guarantee credit and a 65 to 70 per cent. rate for the whole thing must be a take-up rate for the savings credit of 50-something percent., I imagine. I fear that I cannot remember what the Minister may have said about this issue, but will he confirm that the Department will place the whole analysis in the Library, and not just give us bits that suit the Government's argument? In the spirit of opennesshe has been good in dealing with my freedom of information requestsI hope that the Government will place those details in the Library.
	Tax credits were mentioned. The Secretary of State will be well aware that the only families in this country who do not get tax credits are poor families. The intention is to move children on income support over to the tax credits system. That system has now been running for two years, however, and we still do not knowwe did not hear it todaywhy children on income support are getting the current rates of benefits and not moving over to the tax credits system, so that when the parents move into work, there is no disruption or change to the structure of their financial support. Is the tax credits system still such a shambles that we dare not risk including poor families? Is that really the state of play that we have reached? Why are children in poor families not yet on tax credits and when will they be?
	The financial assistance scheme has also been mentioned. The Minister for Pensions responded to a debate only this morning about the APW pensions scheme, and he confirmed that people who work for solvent employers will be excluded from the financial assistance scheme. He said that the door was still open, but gave no indication of an intention to include the workers with solvent employers. I asked him a question in that debate: where there is a parent company, can the regulator go back to the employer and chase them for the underpaid money? Although he finished his speech four minutes before he had to do so, because he had run out of things to say, he did not answer that question. It is not very often that we get two goes in one day at trying to get a question answered. Can the regulator go back to the parent company of a firm such as APW and say, You've got to fill the gap to make up these pensions? If the regulator cannot do that, the workers will have no redress bar deemed buy-back. Clearly, that is not fair in relative terms with regard to other people covered by the financial assistance scheme.
	On the citizens pension, I welcome the fact that I keep reading in the Sunday papers about the Government's intention to follow the Liberal Democrats' lead. We have been speaking about the position of women pensionersI have certainly been doing so, and I know that my colleagues have beenover a long period. I am delighted by the Secretary of State's view that plugging the gaps in the contribution system is not the answer, because there are so many gaps and such an approach would make things even more complicated. The end result of plugging all the gaps is the number that one first thought of, or in other words, paying the full pension in the first place.
	The hon. Member for Havant rightly pointed out that there are both cheap and expensive ways of dealing with the matter. As a transitional arrangement, we have proposed that the full rate would apply to a single person and that a 160 per cent. rate would effectively apply to a couple. We have also proposed that where two members of a couple would already have more than 160 per cent. between them, there would need to be a transitional protection to ensure that there are no cash losers. We have costed that into our policy costings.
	On the earnings link, it was interesting to hear the Secretary of State confirm that the pension credit will be linked to earnings to 2008. I presume that that is the public expenditure planning horizon, but it is not the end of the Parliament. Will the Minister confirm whether he intends to link the pension credit to earnings throughout the next Parliament or whether the guarantee applies only for the first couple of years of that Parliament, after which there might be a change in policy?
	One of the things that strikes me most about the position of pensioners is that, while the Government boast that 80 per cent. of those entitled to the guarantee credit are taking it upthat was the figure that was usedthat means that 20 per cent. are not doing so. Who are those people? They are the poorest pensioners in the land, by definition. When the Government managed to get 80 per cent. of the poorest pensioners in the land to claim their means-tested benefits, they issued a triumphant press release. I think that that is a cause for shame.
	If 20 per cent. of the poorest pensioners in the land, who are all drawing state pensions and could be lifted out of poverty in a guaranteed way by decent payments, are simply not claiming the complex means-tested benefits, those people are living in poverty. I strongly suspectI wonder whether the Department has commissioned any research on this matterthat they may be a strong link between those people and the excess winter deaths that we shamefully see every winter in this country. The numbers fluctuate, but the very fact that excess winter deaths occur at all is a source of shame at the start of this new century. I strongly suspect that a link exists between the very poor, very elderly and very vulnerable pensioners who fail to claim those means-tested benefits and those who die from the cold in the winter.

Malcolm Wicks: Earlier in my career, I researched hypothermia, and there is nothing about which I feel more strongly. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that many over-80s get a 300 winter fuel payment under this Labour Government?

Steve Webb: Indeed. The winter fuel payment is 6 a week, so elderly people who have a full basic pension and who fail to take up the pension credit are missing out on 25 a week, which means that the gap is 19. The Minister looks puzzled: the basic state pension is about 80 a week this year; the means-tested benefit is 105; and the gap is 25. If elderly people do not take up the pension credit, they miss out on 25, but the Minister has just told me that that is okay because they get 6.

Malcolm Wicks: I did not say that.

Steve Webb: The Minister did not say that that is okay, but he asked me to confirm that those elderly people get 6. That is true, but they miss out on 25, so there is no cause for self-congratulation. That money would have been better spent in the first instance on the basic state pension, particularly for those people.

Michael Weir: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the problem is growing, because fuel prices are now increasing in many areas? A recent parliamentary answer to my question about fuel poverty stated that the number of households in fuel poverty is now rising because of increased energy prices. Many people in fuel poverty are pensioners who do not claim their pension credit.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, because fuel bills matter to older people. Many hon. Members will have seen their gas and electricity bills rising substantially.

Alan Johnson: Is it Liberal Democrat policy to get rid of the 300 winter fuel allowance?

Steve Webb: No. We would have preferred to introduce a better state pension, but because the Government have decided to make those payments, we have no plans to get rid of them. A simpler system would be a better system, not least because of the scope for misrepresentation. As the hon. Member for Havant knows, we have no plans to touch winter fuel payments.
	The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) raised the substantive issue of fuel poverty, so it is shame that we have moved on to, Can we get a good quote for our next leaflet? Fuel poverty is not the primary responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions, which is a source of concern. Given the issues about the adequacy of benefits for older people, it would be better if the Department were strongly involved.
	This is the eighth annual debate to which I have responded, and those who study my contributions may spot the odd common themeI shall certainly keep gnawing away until I get answers. I did not expect to get the chance to press the Minister for Pensions today, but I hope that he will respond to my particular point about workers whose firms are still solvent. The Government always say, That is tough. The firm should find the money. If the regulator cannot force the firm to find the money, however, is it fair to say to the workers, That is tough. We cannot do anything?

Archy Kirkwood: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), because this is my first chance to do so. He has pinched a lot of what I want to say, but that is not a great surprise.
	These debates are important. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon, I remember the good old days, when the Chamber used to be packed and when hon. Members vigorously engaged with the arguments. The process of social security is so ineffably complicated that it drives hon. Members out of the debate. They may attend to make constituency points because they have leaflets to write, which we all understand, but that leaves the debate at a level that does not do justice to the complexity, importance and development of the subject. This is my 23rd uprating debateI may have missed one, so it might be my 22nd.
	I know that the Secretary of State has got simplification in his sights because he said so at his last helpful appearance before the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. He gave us some comfort by saying that the Department is considering the matter, which is an easy but fundamental point to make.
	I have considered some of the information and communications technology processes that the Government and the Department have in prospect as part of the Gershon review, which I support in principle. The Gershon report is not all about job cuts; it also considers the more efficient use of technology to deliver public services. If we do not fundamentally simplify the current panoply of benefits and start from first principles, we cannot harness the power of computer technology to develop more efficient public services. The pensions transformation programme is a good example of that because it has the potential to improve services, and I hope that it will. However, a system that was more easily computerised could generate savings, which could be put into improving benefits. That would be beneficial to everyone.
	Simplification is therefore necessary not simply for its own sake but to make anything of the potential of future IT provision. I hope that the Secretary of State will keep that in mind in his five-year plan and start considering annually the simplifications he can make in the uprating statement.
	I acknowledge that a huge amount has been done. My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon rightly said that the campaigns against child poverty and pensioner poverty clearly show results. I accept that they have not all appeared in the statistics yet because there is a time lag, but much has been done, which is welcome. However, parts of the system cause concern. My hon. Friend mentioned working age adults without dependant children. They have been left behind and are in danger of being stigmatised in the provision of benefits.
	According to my arithmetic, jobseeker's allowance has increased by only 7.75 a week since 1997. The increase for adults on income support and JSA is only 55p a week. I have participated in such debates for 22 years and that is the smallest rise that I have ever known for claimants in that category. If I am right, we need to tackle the matter urgently.
	Broad inequality must also be addressed. The work of John Hills and his unit at the London School of Economics shows that, although poverty has been effectively and rightly targeted, we need to deal with the inequality that is beginning to emerge. It happens because people in the upper deciles of income storm ahead. People may say, That's fine. So they should. Good luck to them. However, it creates tensions in the system because people see others getting access to life chances that they do not have. I believe that frustration about that can drive them to all sorts of untoward activity, including criminality and the informal economy. In some cases, it can lead to mental illness. Some figures suggest that the inequalities for some categories of claimants are getting worse. When the Secretary of State examines the uprating figures, year on year, he should consider the big picture of worsening inequality. He needs to think carefully about the way in which he can deal with that in future statements.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon asked for the basis on which the figures were presented. I have discussed the matter with Pensions Ministers over many years and in various circumstances. Many of our sister European nations effectively use modest but adequate budget standards to consider what is needed to provide a sensible income.
	The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine recently produced a report that found that adults needed a minimum of 91 a week on which to live. That is almost twice the level of income support available to the family cited. That is the measure of the adequacy, or inadequacy, of the current level of benefitswelcome though the increases may be. I am not saying that we should immediately move to using modest but adequate budget standards automatically. It would be difficult, and impossibly expensive, to do that all at once, but we should make more use of minimum income standard methods of determining what is necessary for a family budget. We have looked carefully at the benefits that the Government are using to measure child poverty in regard to the targets for the period from 2010 to 2020, and they are better than they might have been. However, a proper assessed budgetary standard for child income would have been a more useful tool for measuring the Government's progress.
	The Government have a story to tell on incapacity benefit and on pathways to work, and I support all that, but it is disappointing that it will take until 2008 to get that system rolled out across the whole of the United   Kingdom. The work done by the New Policy Institute in December 2004, which was funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, clearly showed that economically active people who want paid work but who are not officially unemployed are a big client group, and present a big problem. It is a matter of concern that we are not going to have a UK-wide system to deal with that until 2008.
	Although the policy of having an active labour market is right, and has been successfully operated over the past few years, it ignores the fact that the quality of jobs at the lower end of the employment market cannot provide the necessary long-term stability and adequate life chances for families on lower incomes. The Government should look carefully at the statistics that show that people who go into low-paid jobs often rotate through them in a relatively short time in a way that does not help them much. They still suffer poverty, and they are still in difficulties. It is therefore not safe to assume that the problem is fixed simply by getting people into work. Given the statistics on this large section of the community, it is demonstrably not.
	I concur entirely with the point made by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) about the lost generation of 1 million young adults. The number of people with poor or no educational qualifications is an issue. I accept that it is not technically a benefit matter, but it plays into the new deal and some of the other issues that we are looking at this afternoon.
	I am worried that some of the wider indicators show that, although the benefit system has improved, it is still not adequate for the purpose. The problem of low birth weights, which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) used to bang on about in earlier times, is getting worse. It is a matter of real concern that the problem is being exacerbated in families on low incomes, and we are storing up problems for the future in that regard.
	The number of households in temporary homelessness is a huge issue. We really need to look at the structure of the benefits involved, including some of those dealt with in the uprating statement. In fact, it is time that we started looking at the Rossi index again. People's housing benefit is being restricted for a variety of reasons, including rent restrictions, which we all know about. The costs of housing have increased substantially, and increasing means-tested benefits by 1 per cent. using the Rossi formula might have been a safe thing to do five or 10 years ago, but we need to reconsider whether anything better can be done to protect people who have real problems struggling to meet their housing costs. That need is reinforced by the fact that there is only a 50 per cent. take-up of council tax benefit.
	There is evidence to show that low income, bad diet, low birth weight, homelessness and temporary housing all lead to an exacerbation of mental illness. That is not a direct social security responsibility, but there is evidence that things are getting worse, which we cannot ignore.
	Some capital limits in the order have been in place since time immemorialindeed, some of them came in with the 1986 legislation, which I rememberbut it makes no sense to leave capital limits to languish to such an extent. They need to be re-evaluated and uprated in some way, even if only occasionally and not annually.
	A couple of Members raised the issue of tax credits and I have three questions to ask because I am very worried. The hon. Member for Havant alluded to the problems relating to the recovery of overpaid tax credits. This is a serious matter that impacts on the benefits uprating order, because some people on low incomes are not getting their full entitlement as overpayments are being clawed back at an unconscionable rate. I wonder whether the Department knows how many income support claimants are on a reduced income due to recovery of overpaid tax credits. That would be an important and interesting figure to know.
	I also do not believe that ordinary people on the high streets of the towns of Great Britain know that the Inland Revenue has the discretion to write off overpayments. I do not think anybody tells them that.

Steve Webb: It is not used very often.

Archy Kirkwood: Indeed, the Inland Revenue does not use that discretion very often, even when it is pointed out. I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the fact that, in evidence to the Select Committee, his predecessor gave us an undertaking to examine the situation relating to data on tax credit overpayments as soon as they became availablethey will be soonto ensure that people are not being landed in severe hardship as a result of that clawback.

David Willetts: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I agree with him about tax credits. There are clear examples of people who know that they have been overpaid tax credits, but who, as a result of receiving cash through overpayment, find themselves taken out of housing benefit. They then find it very difficult to get back on to the benefit. There are people who try to set money aside because they fear money has been overpaid, but that takes them over the capital limits. So, there are several interactions between tax credits and the benefits system. Ministers tend to wash their hands of this and say, That's a disaster of the Inland Revenue's making, but it affects people's entitlement to welfare benefits and it is causing genuine distress.

Archy Kirkwood: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman makes the point more eloquently than me. I concur with all that. It is becoming an increasing problemit is not going away and it is not a glitch related to the introduction of a given proposal. Indeed, the evidence available to me suggests that the problem is not getting better at all. If anything, it is getting worse.
	I have two other quick questions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon said, the migration of income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance cases on to child tax credit is also a considerable concern. There are 900,000 families to transfer. A few moments ago, we said that from our experience the tax credit system is shambolic, so there is a genuine worry about when those people will be transferred. The Government's position, I understand, is that the date still remains uncertain, but it certainly will not be in 200405 and we have yet to receive an exact timetable showing when in 200506 the transfer will begin. When that transfer begins, the one thing that must be absolutely guaranteed is that there will be no delays or any other administrative problems, because those families are among those with the lowest income in the land. The House would welcome assurances on that.
	Finally on tax credits, the Public Accounts Committee got an undertaking from the Inland Revenue that once some of the data started to become clearer, there would be a case for reviewing the tax credits scheme. I hope that the Department is alive to that inquiry and that it will encourage and support it, because I detect in all parts of the House evidence of concern about tax credits and how they have been delivered recently.
	I recognise that a huge amount has been done to improve the incomes of many households across the United Kingdom over the last few years, but a lot more work remains to be done. If we do not make sure that we can provide adequate life chances for a whole section of society, we will end up driving people into criminality, as I said earlier, and driving people into the grey economy and not paying taxes. Worse than that, we will disrupt families, producing mental illness and marriage break-up, the consequences of which the taxpayer ends up paying for. It is money well spent to have proper, adequate benefits that are fit for the purpose and set at appropriate levels on which people can live. The Government still have some work to do before they achieve that.

Andrew Selous: It is a great pleasure to take part in this thoughtful debate. I must confess a little surprise to see that no Labour Back Benchers are making speeches in the debate this afternoon. I am in a charitable mood, however, and I will pick up on the Select Committee Chairman's comments that this is becoming such a complex area that it is one in which many Members fear to tread, as they feel that they will not be as knowledgeable as they should be or have all the facts at their fingertips that they feel they should have.
	A more important point lies behind that, as the people who take up these benefitsour poorest and most vulnerable constituentsare not well able to navigate the minefield of regulation and rules that surrounds many of these benefits. On a cross-party basis, we should try to simplify much of the social security system so that it is more easily understood. If we do so, we will see higher take-up. Along with simplicity, we need computer systems that are reliable, that work and that get benefit through to recipients in a timely and correct manner. Whether in relation to the Child Support Agency or the tax credit computers, there have been too many instances in which the technology has let down some of our most vulnerable constituents.
	I was also interested that the issue of income adequacy was touched on briefly, and I commend the two Members who raised the subject. We need to examine that for people who will be out of the labour force through no fault of their own for long periods. We need to be honest and transparent with our constituents about how we will pay for that, and perhaps identify some parts of current Government expenditure that we want to slim down to make moves in that direction. Collectively, we need to turn our attention to that.
	We are covering a wide variety of social security and pension issues this afternoon, and I will inevitably repeat some of the points already made. First, on the pensions side, we understand the Government's arguments about why they felt compelled to introduce the pension credit. A wide consensus now exists among people from many different parts of the political spectrum, however, that that has not been the most sensible way to go. We know that 1.63 million pensioners are not taking up pension credit, which results in many constituents being 25 a week less well-off than they would be otherwise.
	We are also aware of the disincentive effect of pension credit. Even the Prime Minister said on 8 February to the Liaison Committee:
	You obviously don't want a situation where the majority of people are on means-tested pensions.
	I wonder whether he is aware of the fact that nearly half of all pensioners are on means-tested pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said that he was a Blairite on some matters relating to pensions. In this case, the Prime Minister is clearly a Conservative. He has recognised what we have been saying for quite some time, so I think we can trade a bit of party-political allegiance in today's debate.
	The new deal is still the subject of heated debate between the parties. We have said that we will get rid of both the new deal for young people and the new deal 25-plus. I assume that as rational Members of Parliament we proceed on the basis of evidence when framing policy and deciding what to do. Are Ministers really satisfied with the new deal for young people, given that only 38 per cent. of young people secure unsubsidised employment at the end of it? The statistic for the new deal 25-plus is even worse: only 12 per cent. of those who embark on it secure unsubsidised employment.
	As guardians of the public purse, responsible for helping some of the most vulnerable members of society, we should be looking for value for money and ensuring that we have the most efficient policies and systems possible. The statistics I have given are very poor, and we should be able to do better.

Kevan Jones: I agree that those people are the most vulnerable in society, but in my constituency, youth unemployment is down by more than 85 per cent. What will the hon. Gentlemanor the Conservative candidate who will stand against me at the next electionsuggest to those young people as an alternative to that dramatic drop in youth unemployment?

Andrew Selous: I will say something about unemployment shortly, and I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point then; but he has not responded to my point. The question is not, Do we or do we not help these people? Of course we need to help them find work. The question is, Is the new deal the most efficient and effective way of doing that? On the evidence that I have given, which has not been disputed either by the hon. Gentleman or by Ministers, I do not think it is. I think we should be grown up enough to admit that although parts of the system work well, those two parts are clearly not working well. Organisations in the sector will tell those who consult them that there are more efficient ways of dealing with these matters.
	I entirely agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood). Two Fridays ago, a young lady who came to my constituency surgery told me that having applied for various tax credits and returned to work, she faced such a large repayment of money paid to her that she was close to throwing in the towel and leaving the labour force altogether. She is so cross that she has asked me to refer her case to the parliamentary ombudsman. She is not alone: there are many like her. The Government ought to consider an amnesty for those who, through no fault of their ownI do not think there was any fraudulent intentionhave been asked to repay large sums. If the Government are honest, they will say that the computer systems were not fully geared up at the start of the process. There is real anguish and worry among our constituents who are caught up in this.
	I also agree with what the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said about the provision of child care by family members. We should not force our constituents to fit in with some predetermined system that we have come up with here. If we really want to provide a natural solution and help people to sort out their child care problems in the way that they preferwhich involves intimate, personal decisionsit must be right and sensible to allow family members to provide care. Surely we cannot be against that, and we should ensure that it happens.
	I commend the Government for making changes for future entrants to incapacity benefit. The Government are absolutely right to change the name to the rehabilitation support allowance. Clearly, the name incapacity benefit has the wrong connotations. What the Government are planning to do to get people into work is excellent. However, the numbers keep rising. We must comment on the fact that in August 2004 there were 140,000 more people on incapacity benefit. The latest figure is 2,403,000that is 140,000 higher than when the Government came to power.

Malcolm Wicks: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's analysis of incapacity benefit and welcome his support for our proposals. Given the figure that he has just mentioned, what would be his explanation of why, under the previous Government, the number of people on incapacity benefit rose threefold?

Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the United Kingdom economy has been through a period of great transition over the past 15 to 20 years. Certain restructuring needed to take place. It would have taken place under a Labour Government had one been in power at the time. I do not know whether he is suggesting that some of the industries of that time should be carrying on with large state subsidies. Necessary transformations took place. They would have taken place whichever party was in power. If he is fair in his assessment of recent economic history, he will probably agree.
	I come back to economic activity and to the intervention from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). We know from labour market statistics released only last week, on 16 February, by the Office for National Statistics that 1,126,000 of our young people aged between 16 and 24 were not in work, not studying and not training in December 2004. That figure is 44,000 higher than when the Government took office. In the trade, they are known as NEETsnot in employment, education or training.
	I wonder what all those people do. I wonder where they are. I have to think quite hard of the type of families that those 1,126,000 young people are in. What is their situation? That is a fantastic waste of potential for the UK labour force. We need to make a much greater effort to get those young people into employment.
	The Government say that we need migration. It is clear that we do in certain parts of the economy but we need to look to our own resource within this country and to get those young people into the public service jobs that we need and into areas where there are skills shortages. We should make a far greater effort to do that.
	The hon. Member for North Durham talked about unemployment. I come on to that willingly. We need to remember that we are in the 13th year of growth, which was set on a good curve in 1992. If he looks at the record, he will find that, between 1993 and 1997, when we were in power, unemployment fell by 908,000. There was a 31 per cent. fall. Between 1997 and 2004, it fell by 607,000. That is a 30 per cent. fall. Therefore, there was a 31 per cent. fall under us and a 30 per cent. fall in slightly more than seven years under this Government. He will see that the curve has carried on and that our record stands up well. We are obviously delighted that all those people have jobs but, as I said, those statistics speak for themselves and they are based on the back of 13 years of growth, established originally under a Conservative Government.

Kevan Jones: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has recognised the good job that the Labour Government are doing in getting people back into work, but the fact is that the last Conservative Government wrecked my constituency by throwing people on to the dole, and used incapacity benefit to massage the figures and to write off a generation of people who were still economically active. Will he now admit that the last Tory Government used incapacity benefit in the cruellest way in constituencies such as mine, which led to many people thinking that they had no future in employment at all?

Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman is keen to trawl through recent economic history, but as I said in response to an earlier intervention, I suspect that, whichever party had been in power, it would have been necessary to take difficult decisions about restructuring across the economy. Those were indeed difficult decisions, and I am aware that they hugely and painfully affected many people's lives.

Kevan Jones: rose

Andrew Selous: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman twice, and if he will allow me I will wind up my remarks. For the record, I repeat that there was a fall in unemployment of 908,000some 31 per cent.between 1993 and 1997. I am of course delighted that it has continued to fall, but it has done so from the firm base established under a Conservative Government, with growth starting in 1992.

Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to be able to take part in this debate, although I am saddened that it has not attracted the depth and width of interest that it might have done among Members. It is of particular concern that not a single Government Back Bencher has thought it necessary to make a proper speech on uprating; their constituents will wonder where they were this afternoon.
	The social security bill is growing. The Prime Minister said at his party's 1996 conference that that would not happen under a Labour Government, but the opposite has proved the case. There is growing means-testing throughout the entire social security world, and the related expenditure is often self-defeating. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) made clear, we will not vote against the uprating, although it remains to be seen whether the Liberal Democrats will, as it has been their habit to do so. However, it is a concern that so few Labour Members have felt it necessary to take part in this debate.
	I want to touch on several matters that have been raised. This has, rightly, been a wide-ranging debate, and those of us who have taken the trouble to be present throughout have covered a galaxy of different issues. I am looking forward to the Minister for Pensions' winding-up speech. He has much more time than he might otherwise have had, and he will doubtless be able to dot every i and cross every t, having had a chance to warm up in Westminster Hall this morning.
	As is often the case, the Government have produced a high-flown ambition: they want to abolish child poverty. However, they are setting about achieving that, in part, by changing the target. They want to exclude housing costs, which appears to lift about 1 million children out of poverty simply at the stroke of a pen. As Conservatives, we believe that the conventional wayfocusing on those below 60 per cent. of median incomeshould be maintained, and that the Government are wrong to move the goalposts in the middle of trying to implement their high-flown policy.
	There has already been some discussion about the myriad failings of the Child Support Agency. In my other role as a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I have had the pleasureif that is the right wordof hearing evidence about IT and managerial failings from a series of people, including the Secretary of State, his predecessor and, of course, the much-discussed Mr. Doug Smith, who I believe is still the CSA chief executive. We know that of the 478,000 applications to the new scheme since April 2003, only 61,000 non-resident parents had made a first payment. We also know that there has been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of complaints to the independent case examiner since 2003.
	Behind that figure, there must also be many people who have simply given up altogether. There must be many who have given up trying to contact the CSA by telephone, who have given up trying to get any sense out of the person to whom they are talkingif they do manage to get someone on the other end of the telephoneand who have certainly not gone as far as contacting the independent case examiner. When Mr. Smith gave evidence to my Committee, he said that the Child Support Agency had an aspiration to deal with these matters in an average timebetween first contact with the parent with care through to having payment arrangements in placeof six weeks. At the time he gave that evidence, it turned out that in the real world, the average was somewhere between 15 and 22 weeks. I am not aware how long it takes at the moment.
	The annual report and accounts for the CSA showed an outstanding debt of 720 million in March 2004, with a further 947 million classified as uncollectable. My Committee had a lot to say about that, but I shall not go into all the details on this occasion. We had much to say about the failings of enforcement and[Interruption.] I am talking about the Select Committee on which I have the honour of serving under the distinguished chairmanship of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood). Peebles used to be somewhere in that constituency name, but it seems to have got lost in the wash.
	I am not just talking about figures, or beating up high-flown officials within the CSA for their apparent ineptitude, as the fact remains that the CSA has failed to collect 750 million owed to some of the poorest families in Britain.
	When the Secretary of State came before the Select Committee side by side with Mr. Doug Smith, the body language was fascinating to watch. As the magnitude of the awfulness of the CSA's performance emerged, there was a perceptible growth in the gap between the Secretary of State and the chief executive.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I would like to acquaint my hon. Friend with my constituency case of Mrs. Little, who tried for months to get the Child Support Agency to take some notice of her claim for her four children. When eventually the CSA took notice of it, it wrote back to apologise for the fact that the computer had broken down. She was told that her claim would have to be dealt with manually and it would be another 20 weeks before she would receive any money at all. Does my hon. Friend regard that as acceptable?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now getting into special pleading, and I urge the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) not to pursue that path.

Nigel Waterson: I feel for Mrs. Little, but I will resist the temptation to follow that path in too much detail, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Let us return to the chief executive and the Secretary of State giving evidence to my Committee about the overall performance of the CSA. In his usual skilful fashion, the Secretary of State tried to draw the fire away from the chief executive and himself by announcing at the beginning of the evidence that Mr. Doug Smith would be leaving the CSAto spend more time with his family or some such reason. That was on 17 November 2004. The transcript was read to me by several BBC journalists, and I accept that no one said expressly that Mr. Smith would be leaving quite soon, but I must admit to being pretty surprised to find that he is still in post, apparently barricaded in his office at the CSA and saying, I'm not coming out.

Alan Johnson: I distinctly remember the hon. Gentleman being present at the meeting, so perhaps he will recall my saying that the current chief executive would be handing over the reins to the new chief executive, which suggests that the new chief executive has to be appointed before the old chief executive moves on.

Nigel Waterson: I am certainly not suggesting that the Secretary of State was trying to mislead anyone, but I was left with the distinct impression that it would not be a lengthy process and that Mr. Smith had had enough, that the CSA had had enough, that its clients had had enough, and that the Secretary of State had certainly had enough. I leave aside any speculation as to what useful tips Mr. Smith might be able to pass on to his successor in handing over the reins. As I understand it, there has not exactly been a queue of qualified applicants for this particular job, but I express my surprise that Mr. Smith is still there, rather than facing new challenges in another job.

Andrew Selous: Does my hon. Friend share my surprise, given the CSA's recent history, that Mr. Smith was awarded a CBE in the new year honours list?

Nigel Waterson: It is not for me to second-guess Her Majesty in these matters. In any event, there is no greater honour than being the chief executive of the CSA, and Mr. Smith seems intent on clinging to that for the time being.
	I turn to the debacle of the overpayment of tax credits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant noted, many hon. Members encounter this matter at their constituency surgeries, and in correspondence. People with delicate family budgets face real hardship as a result of this problem. What is being said to people about their overpayments? That question was asked earlier by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. How many claimants of income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance are on reduced incomes as a result of the recovery of overpayments? If the Minister does not have the figures to hand, I should be grateful if he would write to us.
	What steps are being taken to ensure that income support claimants know that the Inland Revenue has the discretion not to recover overpayment in cases of hardship? I remind the House that it is my party's policy to introduce an amnesty in respect of most cases of overpayment. After all, the overpayments are not remotely the fault of the claimants themselves.
	I do not want to repeat the arguments that have already been made about incapacity benefit, but as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said, some elements in the Government's proposalssuch as those to take away some of the stigma associated with the title of the benefitare to be welcomed. However, the number of people on incapacity benefit has risen significantly under this Government. The present proposals apply only to new claimants, and contain nothing that affects the 2.7 million existing claimants.
	Will the Minister confirm that in 1997, 47 per cent. of people claiming incapacity benefit were unemployed, and that that figure has risen to 60 per cent.? Will he also confirm that the number of people leaving incapacity benefit has fallen, and that as a result, the number of claimants has risen by 140,000 since May 1997?
	I now turn to questions arising from the new incapacity benefit system. It was stated earlier that under the new system, severely sick or disabled people would receive more money. However, the rates for the new benefit have not been set yet. What evidence will be used in deciding the rates paid under the new regime that will replace incapacity benefit? What assurances can the Minister for Pensions give that sick and disabled people will not lose income under the new scheme? Will the Department set expenditure targets for the new rehabilitation support allowance and the disability and sickness allowance? How long does he envisage that it would take claimants on rehabilitation support allowance to move beyond the basic rate, which is paid at JSA levels, and reach the higher levels equivalent to long-term incapacity benefit?
	The separate issue of economic inactivity is one of those dialogues of the deaf, which we seem to have regularly in the Chamber, between Ministers who are happy to crow and issue press releases about the headline level of unemployment, but are reticent in talking about the large number of people in this country who do not find their way into those statistics because they are economically inactive. The crying shame, as my hon. Friends have said, is that more than 1.1 million young people are neither working, studying nor training. When will the Government have a proper thought-out strategy to deal with that lost generation, which is apparently doing nothing and is not included in the unemployment figures?
	While I am on the subject of employment and unemployment, it is worth quoting what Labour Market Trends concluded this month:
	while unemployment levels have generally been increasing over the past four years, the rate of increase has been no more than in line with population growth, leaving the trend in the employment rate largely flat since 2000, following stronger growth through much of the 1990s.
	That is the context in which all employment and unemployment issues should be considered. The Government do not have some great success story; they are simply talking the credit for a trend that has been flat since 2000, and is based on the successes of the 1990s.
	On pensions, the quote given by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire bears repetition. The Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee recently:
	You obviously don't want a situation where the majority of people are on means-tested pensions.
	Presumably on planet Blair, they are not. However, we know that at least half of pensioners are on means-tested benefits and that the proportion is destined to rise inexorably under this Government's policies, subject to one issue to which I shall return.
	We know that the latest figures show that one in five of the poorest pensioners are not claiming the means-tested assistance to which they are entitled. During the past three months, only about 30,000 new people have signed up for the pension credit. Despite all the bally-hoo, all the advertisingwhich I see regularly in my local paper in Eastbourneand all the efforts of the Pension Service, which is doing an excellent job in my area, the application rate is tailing off. As Gordon Lishman of Age Concern said recently:
	Around a third of pensioners who are eligible for pension credit are still not receiving it.
	That is 1.63 million people.
	We are all hanging on the final report of the Pensions Commissionthe Turner commissionwhich, sadly, will not be available until after the election. It has spotted the effect of means-testing on pension provision in this country.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is behind the game, because the splendid new Blairite shadow Secretary of State sitting next to him has announced that the pension credit will rise at the same rate as earnings until 2008, so the argument about people being sucked into means-testing is meaningless, given that that system would continue under both Conservatives and Labour.
	Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that when the Select Committee of which he is a member went to Glasgow to talk to the splendid Pension Service about the main reason why people say that they do not want pension credit, it was told that the reason was not stigma, but because people say that they have enough money and do not need any more? Will he confirm that that was the biggest single reason for people not taking up pension credit?

Nigel Waterson: I did not have the pleasure of joining the Select Committee in Glasgow, but that is not the evidence that I receive from my constituency. If the Secretary of State is suggesting that that explains why 1.6 million people are not claiming, he is in cloud cuckoo land.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Havant has made it clear that our policy is to match the Government in raising pension credit in line with earnings. That is not to say that pensioners will not be floated off means-testing. The rate may be slower than we had anticipated under our original policy, but that is not to say that we are not trying to get them off means-testing. What is the Secretary of State saying? He seems to be Jekyll and Hyde when it comes to the pros and cons of means-testing.

Steve Webb: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm whether he stands by 1 million as the number of people that his party would lift off means-testing in the next Parliament?

Nigel Waterson: Obviously, in view of my party's recent announcement and the Government's equally recent announcement, that figure will have to be changed, but that does not mean that it will be zero. A number of pensioners will still be floated off means-testing in the first Parliament, and ever more will be floated off in subsequent Parliaments. That is fairly clear.
	It is difficult to contend with the Secretary of State, because there are two Secretaries of State. There is the sober, solemn character who runs the Department for Work and Pensions and then, as soon as he can get away from the Department, there is the character who leaps into a telephone booth, changes his costume and thinks the unthinkable about the universal citizen's pension or whatever it may be. The Secretary of State said:
	the pension credit and means-testing should be there until we have solved the problem of abject pensioner poverty.[Official Report, 13 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 309.]
	He also said that there were no plans to continue the credit indefinitely.
	We are all hanging on the publication of a set of principlesas they have been describeddefining how the Government will approach pension policy in the future, although on another day they tell us that they can say nothing because they are waiting for Turner to report. After the document setting out the principles on which the Government will base their pension reforms is produced, how long do they expect pension credit to be around, for planning purposes? Will it be one year, five years, 10 years or 20 years? I assume that the Government agree with the Turner commission that unless there is certainty on that issue it will be difficult for people to plan for their retirement.
	If pension credit is needed until, as the Secretary of State put it, we have solved the problem of abject pensioner poverty, when will the Department judge that target to have been met? We shall be interested to hear about that, because as I said, there seem to be two Secretaries of Statethe one who sticks by the departmental line and the one who goes in for blue-skies thinking on some of the big questions about pensions.
	On take-up, it is clear that pensioners are missing out on almost 3 billion-worth of benefits. Some charities have described that as unforgivable. About 2 million pensioners, about half those eligible, fail to claim a total of 870 million in council tax benefit. No one tried to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Havant when he said that council tax benefit had the lowest take-up of any means-tested benefit in the system. There is a particular problem because take-up is so low among owner-occupiers. We are all familiar with such people. There are many in my constituency elderly people who own their homes, but do not have much cash or many savings. That is why our party concluded that the only way to deal with that problem, especially in the light of the 70 per cent. average rise in council tax bills since 1997it is more like 87 per cent. in my constituency, with a little help from the Liberal Democrats on occasionis an age discount, to halve bills in households with members aged 65 or over, up to a 500 maximum. That proposal came out only a couple of days ago and has been extremely well received.
	Finally, I turn to the FAS, as the Government call it, or farce as some of us prefer to pronounce itthe financial assistance scheme and the protection of people's pensions. This is really part 2 of a debate on the APW schemean unfortunate state of affairsthat we began in Westminster Hall this morning. Is it not typical that, although at that stage we had not seen today's written statement on the FAS, it emerged in the Minister's winding-up speech that although there are, I think, 380 schemes listed in the statement today, APW is not one of them? Why not? Because that is classed as a solvent wind-up. We are talking about people who, as I understand it, have lost 80 per cent. of their pension rights through absolutely no fault of their own.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant was saying, this seems to be an exercise in ad hocery. The original announcement in May last year happened in a rush because the Government were facing defeat in the House over the Pensions Bill. We have had various announcements over the intervening months, which have slowly dragged out of the Government precisely how they think the FAS would work. A lot has changed in that time. The Government have quite properly commissioned research, which came up with a figure of 65,000 people. Other high-profile schemes, such as APW and Turner and Newell, have hit the news, and I am sure there have been many others, less well publicised. Only one thing has remained unchanged and unchangeable: the amount originally set for the FAS itself, which was 20 million over 20 yearsa total of 400 million. It was clearly inadequate then and has become ever more obviously inadequate in the intervening months.
	Of course, there is still uncertainty. We do not know what is going to happen to people who are more than three years away from retirement. We do not know how many people, as opposed to how many schemes, are to share the 20 million a year. We still do not know the precise relationship between the Pension Protection Fund and the FAS. There is the suggestion, which came out very late in the day, that the PPF itself could be retrospectivesomething that was always stated not to be the case from the time when the legislation started its process. Today, for the first time, we have the Government, in effect and belatedly, finally accepting that their original figure is inadequate, by suggesting that in the next public spending review the figure will be considered again.
	One thing that we do agree with the Government about is that the taxpayer cannot be regarded as a bottomless pit, to keep contributing money to compensate people for losing their pensions. At the same time we recognise that those people have a clear moral and perhaps even legal case to be compensated. That is why we revert again to our policy on the use of unclaimed assetsthe 15 billion of unclaimed assets reliably estimated to exist in this country. Ireland began by simply taking the interest on those unclaimed assets. Of course, we would require various safeguards as part of our policy to ensure fairness. The Treasury is already well advanced on that process, but for different reasons. The Chancellor wants to get his hands on unclaimed assets to use them for charitable purposes.
	Yet again, we plead with Ministers not to set their face against the use of unclaimed assets, but finally to agree to consider them as a possible source of compensation for those people. As I said, only this morning we heard about APW and the very sad situation that those people find themselves in. One thing that I can confidently predict is that they will not be the last. The Government have constantly been trying to catch up with events, rather than sitting down at the very beginning and working out a scheme that will be enduring, successful and achieve the objects required of it.
	We will not divide the House on the uprating orders. They raise a host of issues, all of which I expect the Minister for Pensions to deal with in his winding-up speech.

Malcolm Wicks: Although in some respects this has been a quiet debate that has not taken place in a crowded Chamber, a range of important issues have been aired on all sides. I pay tribute to all those hon. Members who spoke, including those who made some useful interventions. I would like to single out the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), the Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee and previously the Social Security Committee. He could not quite remember the number of times that he has taken part in such a debateit was about 20but I fear that this may be the last occasion on which he does so because, sadly, he is retiring from the House. Both in my current role and when I had great honour of serving on the Select Committee under his chairmanship, I have found his contributions thoughtful, well informed, intelligent and compassionate.

Andrew Selous: I should like to develop that tribute on behalf of the Opposition. I, too, am a member of the Select Committee and have been very happy to serve under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. He chairs the Committee in an exemplary manner and I appreciate the opportunity to thank him for all that he has done.

Malcolm Wicks: That was a gracious tribute.
	I do not want the House or the massed ranks of my colleagues to think that I am going soft on the Liberal Democrats, as I may speak slightly differently about the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). The Government faced a strategic challenge, as too many British citizens were born poor, had an impoverished and diminished childhoodoften, but not always, in fragile families. As a result, they achieved little at school and ended up with poor educational attainments. Some, but not all, of those children were at risk from evils in our society, and when they left school, sometimes before 16, they did not take up education, employment or training. That is a problemit may not be as sizeable as some have said, but that is not the point. The Connexions service in England and the learning and skills councils were established in part to tackle such issues.
	As a result of those diminished childhoods, too many of our citizens end up without work or with poor job opportunities. They often have poor skills and are on low pay. That cycle ends with many people becoming impoverished in old age and receiving poor pension entitlements. The challenge for those of us interested in a modern welfare state is a traditional onehow do we break the cycle of poverty and deprivation and try to move towards a cycle of achievement and opportunity for all our citizens? We have not entirely met that challenge, which still faces us, but we have made progress. I am proud of our record on children and the fact that total spending on financial support for children has gone up by over 10 billion in real terms since 1997. I am proud of the fact that, since 1997, families with children will on average be 1,300 a year better off, while the poorest fifth will on average be 3,000 a year better off. It is notable that, in December 2004, nearly 20 million people, including 10 million children, benefited from the new tax credits. I accept that there have been problems with tax credits, but many people have benefited from them.
	I noted carefully, as did the Secretary of State, the issues surrounding the overpayment of tax credits. The Department is not responsible for that, but we share concern about it. I shall investigate the adverse impact and interaction with other benefits that have been mentioned, as well as issues about capital that the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) raised. I accept that we need to look at that.
	The child trust fund will make a meaningful difference to the savings environment in future generations by promoting positive attitudes towards savings. This is not an occasion to debate the Child Support Agency, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has read carefully the excellent report from the Select Committee, to which we will respond in weeks. We are not happy with the performance of the CSA. Those children need support from both parents, wherever possible. We must make progress and we intend to do so. I have mentioned some of what we are doing for children. I cannot deal with the subject holistically as that would mean speaking more about education.
	As regards people of working age, we are again proud of our record. Unemployment is at a 30-year low. The number of people in work is up by 2 million since 1997. There are more than 28.5 million people in work, the highest number ever. Compared with the G8 or the European Union, our employment rate of nearly 75 per cent. is almost at the top of the international league table. Iceland is top at 80 per cent. I do not know whether the Secretary of State has visited IcelandI refer to the country, not the superstorebut our ambition now is an employment rate of 80 per cent.
	Opportunities for people with disabilities will be greatly increased by the measures in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. That is very relevant to our employment ambitions. By focusing on what people can do rather than on what they cannot do, we are determined to help the many who are currently on incapacity benefit and want to return to work to do so. We are doing that through our pathways to work and new deal programmes. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire comment favourably on aspects of our policy in this regard. It is a challenge for all of us to recognise that, although there is much discussion of the appropriate retirement age, too many of our citizens are effectively retired in their 50s, rather than their 60s.

David Willetts: The Minister referred to the Government's target of 80 per cent. employment in the document which, we discovered today, the Secretary of State wrote. Will he explain to the House how that target was reached? Will he confirm that it is an extrapolation of a long-established trend?

Malcolm Wicks: It is certainly an extrapolation in the sense that we are doing so well in tackling unemployment and raising the employment rate. We wantI am trying to think of a phrase that might sum it upwe want to go forward, not back, and we intend to go forward. [Interruption.] I thought that was pretty original. If the hon. Gentleman calls that an extrapolation, fine.
	The new deal has been a tremendous success, with more than 1.2 million people helped into work through that programme. Sadly, Opposition Members want to scrap that policy. Since 1997, long-term youth unemployment has fallen by two fifths. The new deal for young people has helped more than half a million young people into jobs. We are engaged in making work possible, making work pay through tax credits and the minimum wage, and making work skilled. That is the challenge for us.
	Over the long term, the more successful we are in our policies for children and people in work, the more successful we will be in overcoming pensioner poverty. As the Secretary of State said, the best pension policy of all is a job. For the current group of pensioners, the pension credit is a success. It now reaches 3.2 million people and, as has been noted, two thirds of those people are women, partly because they live longer, partly because they do not have full national insurance contribution recordshence the important debate about the future of state pensionsand because in their careers many men have been nowhere near a decent works or occupational pension. The Opposition parties criticise us for using pension credit because it is means-tested. As we have said before, in the short to medium term, it plays a vital role in tackling pensioner poverty. Since 1997, our policies have lifted 1.8 million pensioners out of absolute poverty. Now, through pension credit, 2.4 million people in almost 2 million households are receiving more money than before.
	As a result of the measures that we have introduced since 1997, an extra 10 billion will be spent on pensioners in 200506. Almost half that extra spendingabout 5 billionis going to the poorest third of pensioners. As we have said, we think that 80 per cent. of those entitled to the guarantee level are claiming, and 90 per cent. of the poorest women are doing so. Many people are 36 a week or more better off as a result of our policies.

Steve Webb: If the Minister can quote guarantee credit take-up figures, he must be able to quote savings credit take-up figures. What is that take-up rate?

Malcolm Wicks: I cannot quote those figures off the top of my head. If we have them, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. We were uncertain whether he had asked the question and whether I had replied, but we will look at the matter to see if we can be helpful.

Lynne Jones: I have just been at a meeting of the all-party group on pensioner incomes. We were given a presentation by the Pensions Policy Institute, which put the figure on take-up of savings credit at 50 per cent.

Malcolm Wicks: I cannot say whether that is accurate. We will look at the figures. Until I noticed who my hon. Friend was, I was hoping that she might be rather pleased that, among her poorer constituents, and women in particular, pension credit was doing well. I am sure that she is pleased about that.

Lynne Jones: I would prefer it if we had a citizen's pension ensuring that all pensioners got at least 105 a week.

Malcolm Wicks: On the state second pensionI often feel that we do not talk enough about thiswe believe that designing a policy that helps low earners means that 5.8 million people are now building up a state second pension. Particularly notable is the fact that 1.9 million carers are now building an entitlement to a state second pension.
	The shadow Secretary of State, whom we wish a long career in that role, is very interested in deemed buy-back, which was a feature of our warm-up debate in Westminster Hall, which had a slightly larger crowd than we have now at some stages, on the APW case. We have spoken about the issue, and although I am a master of detail, it may be that there are some other things about which I could write to him. We think that 800 individuals have so far been offered deemed buy-back. We think that only eight individuals have so far taken up the offer. The majority of the rest are still considering their position. I am taking a good deal of interest in the matter so that we can facilitate movement in this area.
	The shadow Secretary of State also asked me about the total numbers that we had unearthed, to put it rather badly, in our research exercise on the financial assistance scheme. The list that we published today indicates that there are at least 380 defined benefit pension schemes whose members should potentially be eligible for financial assistance. There are about 70,000 non-pensioner members in the schemes. The figure is therefore more or less consistent with the estimate that we published last June, suggesting that there were about 85,000 non-pensioner members in affected schemes, about 65,000 of whom were facing significant losses. It looks like our early estimates were broadly correct.
	I have talked about today's pensioners, but in terms of today's work force and tomorrow's pensioners, the Pensions Act 2004 is of enormous significance. The new regulator will have sharper teeth than the old regulatory framework, which is a significant development. The Pension Protection Fund is a landmark reform offering security and helping to build confidence for some 10 million pension scheme members in defined benefit or what are sometimes known as final salary schemes. That is a major new part of our welfare state architecture, and one day we will look back with some pride on legislating for it.
	Meanwhile, as we know, for groups of workers already in very debilitating circumstances who could not be helped by the PPF because it was not yet there, we have the financial assistance scheme, which has excited considerable interest today. The scheme is important. We will provide those people who are around pension agesome of them are coming up to it and some of them have already passed itwith a core pension entitlement of some 80 per cent. I hope that that meets my pledge to this House that the help for those groups would be significant or substantial. I hope that we have kept our word, and I am sure that we have. The possibility of reviewing the finances in the short to medium term is a further step in building confidence.
	In his winding-up speech, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) referred to the important APW case and seemed to imply that support from the financial assistance scheme or the Pension Protection Fund should be generally available to solvent employers. I wonder whether that is a serious suggestionI am not making a party political pointand whether it is a serious spending pledge on the financial assistance scheme.

Nigel Waterson: rose

Malcolm Wicks: I do not see how one can say to a solvent company, We recognise that you have got a pension problem; the taxpayer will write you a cheque. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that hundreds of companies and pension schemes would knock on our door and say, The company is doing all right. We are solvent, but we have a black hole in our pension scheme, and we understand that the financial assistance scheme can bail us out. That would be nonsense and a slippery slope to the nationalisation of all financial risk. It is simply not credible.
	Moving on[Interruption.] It is not for the Liberal Democrats to suggest what the Conservative party is suggesting. Perhaps the Conservative party will suggest what it is suggesting.

Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to the Minister for finally letting me intervene. We have not made a spending pledge, because we want to go down the path of using unclaimed assets, which have nothing to do with the taxpayer. My point is simple: why are the Government automatically excluding all solvent wind-ups? APW, which we heard about this morning, is the perfect example, and it is automatically excluded from any help under the FAS. The workers will be just as badly off regardless of whether the wind-up is solvent or insolvent.

Malcolm Wicks: I am trying to be fair, and that question and the workers' sense of injustice are both perfectly reasonable. However, those of us who frame social policy and who examine the financial implications and perverse consequences of taking the wrong decision must be tough-minded. Where an employer is solvent, they should take responsibility for supporting the pension scheme. [Interruption.] Someone is mumbling, but I will not be distracted unless they care to stand up.
	I have outlined our record on children, jobs and pensioners and discussed the cycle of opportunity and advantage that we should create. I contrast that record with the Conservative position. We are proud of our record on employment, but many people remember the Conservative party as the party of mass unemployment. We will listen carefully and critically to its proposals on   council tax, but many people remember it as the party of the poll tax, for which its current leader took special responsibility. [Interruption.] The number of Conservative Front Benchers has expanded, which is good because they need some support.
	When the Tories discuss pensioner poverty, we remember that, in 1997, the previous Government expected a single pensioner on income support to survive on 69 a week. From April, we will provide 109 a week, which is an increase of 40. That is the difference between talk and action. When we consider the Conservatives' spending pledges ofis it 35 billion?and hear about their spending cuts, we will contrast the figures with their desire to tell the electorate that they want to spend more. We shall question time and again the sense of abolishing the new deal, which has given so much hope to our young people and the long-term unemployed and been so successful in enabling lone parents to get back into the labour market.
	We shall also question the dogma that the Jobcentre Plus network should be privatised. I shall continue to remind the shadow Secretary of State and the shadow Minister that they declined to give a Second Reading to the Pensions Bill, which introduced the Pension Protection Fund.

Andrew Selous: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: I wanted to say a few kind words about the Liberals, but I am happy to give way.

Andrew Selous: Will the Minister respond to my point about the new deal for young people and the new deal 25-plus? Is he proud of that fact that only 12 per cent. of those who start on the new deal 25-plus get into unsubsidised employment? That is not a good record. There could be a better way in which to spend the money.

Malcolm Wicks: I do not know that statistic. My colleagues will consider the matter. However, I am pleased that young people, who were thrown into the dustbin of economic change in the past, now have different opportunities. We all know that the first step into training or the labour market often enables people to take more decisive steps.
	Like the Tories, the Liberal Democrats have some reasonable ideas about pension reform in the state sector, and we can compare and contrast the different approaches to tackling pensioner poverty. However, I find it difficult to take the way in which the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) always talks down pension credit. Even when we say, with some pride but no complacency, that we are pleased that 80 per cent. of the poorest pensioners now get pension credit, the response is, It's only 80 per cent. What about the 20 per cent.? Hon. Members who talk down pension credit and suggest that people have to fill in the long form, that it stigmatises and is no different from the means tests of old, are part of the problem. They put people off claiming pension credit and are therefore not part of the solution. I want them to be part of the solution because although more than 3 million elderly people receive pension credit and know the answer to Liberal Democrat cynicism, I want the figure to be far higher.
	What about the position of the hon. Member for Northavon on the financial assistance scheme? He has always talked down the possibility of such a scheme and been cynical about it. He has told groups of workers and trade unions not to listen to the Government because we would never do anything about a financial assistance scheme. Let me give chapter and verse. In January 2004, in Work and Pensions questions, he asked:
	In fact, is it not true that the Government will do precisely nothing and take many months to do it? Those workers are hoping for a last-minute announcement that the Government will come up with something for them. Would it not have been more honest and generated less false hope to have told them that at the start?[Official Report, 12 January 2004; Vol. 416 c. 513.]
	He was wrong and we were right in our determination to develop a financial assistance scheme. As soon as possible, it will give 80 per cent. of core pension rights to British workers who have worked hard and, through no fault of theirs, find that their pension hopes have been dashed. We are giving not false hope but real hope to that group. It is time that the Liberal Democrats stopped being cynical and recognised that the scheme is a major advance.

Peter Bottomley: Does the Minister propose to end his speech without mentioning the British pensioners overseas, who get upratings in the United States but not in Canada or the other Dominions?

Malcolm Wicks: Welcome. Is it still cold outside? I am a little old-fashionedI am replying to the debate. If the hon. Gentleman had made a proper contribution, I could have responded. A court case is coming up soon on the matter and we will examine the judgment. I am sorryI did not mean to be churlish to my old friend, but we would have welcomed his presence in the debate because it was slightly lonely in here for an hour or so.
	This Labour Government are proud of our record on tackling child poverty, seeking to abolish fuel poverty and helping to eradicate pensioner hardship. However, we are not complacent and we are eager to do more. We want to give proper status and respect to those with disabilities and those who are carers. We want to increase employment opportunities for all our citizens and further to support our children and our elderly people. Yes, this is a case of forward, not backI use the phrase again, as it seems to go down well. The Labour Government are proving that we can combine economic competence with social justice. What we are about is a Britain that works and a Britain that cares.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.

PENSIONS

Resolved,
	That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pension Increase Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Drugs Bill (Programme) (No.2)

Caroline Flint: I beg to move,
	That the Programme Order of 18th January 2005 relating to the Drugs Bill be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the following order: amendments to the clauses of the Bill; amendments to the Schedules of the Bill; New Clauses; New Schedules; remaining proceedings on consideration.
	3. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order.
	4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order.
	I shall be brief, and I hope that we can achieve consensus on this issue. We want to ensure that we guarantee the three hours of debate on the Drugs Bill. There was extensive discussion in our six sittings in Committee, including a very long discussion on the reclassification of cannabis. That was also voted on in Committee. The programme motion allows us three hours of debate on the Bill. It also allows us to deal with the most important issues in an appropriate order.
	A number of the issues raised in Committee gave me pause for thought, and I have tried to capture our response in the Government amendments, to show that we have been listening to the concerns that were raised. I hope that Opposition Members will agree that that is what we have achieved.
	I would like to apologise to Opposition Members for the late arrival today of a letter that was based on issues raised in Committee. I want to offer my unreserved apology for that, and I hope that it will not happen again in my ministerial career, however short or long that might be.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister has just said that she wants to dispose of this motion quickly because she wants to guarantee three hours of debate on the Bill. If that is what she wanted, it would have been quite simple not to have tabled this programme motion at all. So I do not agree with her basic premise, and it would be quite remiss of me to pass up this opportunity without making some further comments. I note that she has apologised unreservedly on a particular matter, and I shall refer to that matter in the course of my remarks on the programme motion.
	I believe that it was only yesterday evening that the official Opposition discovered the details of the programme motion that is on today's Order Paper. The motion limits the entire Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill to a mere three hours. If I have read it correctly, it provides 45 minutes for this debate on the programme motion. The Report stage can take up to two hours from the time this debate started at 5.25, and there will be an hour thereafter for our Third Reading debate. It is interesting to see that the Government have protected the Third Reading debate, because on another Bill recently, they completely failed to do so. They have obviously learned from their mistakes. I had to weigh up whether to debate this motion, thereby using up part of that precious time, and I decided that the time allotted was so meagre that I ought to make this protest, and to put on record the views of the Opposition.
	There is no doubt that the programming device is the subject of a great deal of controversy. It is neither an equal nor a fair process, and it certainly enables the Government to impose a timetable irrespective of the views of the Opposition. That is, of course, if the Opposition have had an opportunity to put their views.
	The report on the programming of legislation was published in July 2004. It was the product of the Procedure Committee, of which I was a member many years ago and which does sterling work.

Eric Forth: Hear, hear!

Cheryl Gillan: I have support in the Chamber, and I am pleased to see the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), in his place, because this is a serious matter that reflects the reason for my choosing to debate the programme motion in these 45 minutes. I am also pleased to see other Members who have been members of the Procedure Committee from time to time.
	Page 3 of the report carries the summary and a recommendation from the Committee, which says:
	We recommend that programming motions should be decided without debate only when there is cross-party support; on other occasions the Government would, if necessary, have to justify such a motion in a one-hour debate.
	That recommendation has been completely flouted, because we have only 45 minutes in which to pursue the matter of this programme motion. The report continues:
	In exchange, we would expect parties to adopt a constructive approach to programming.
	It is fair to say that during consideration of the Billthe Minister can intervene if she disagreesthe Government received good co-operation from the Opposition. We have attempted to improve hastily drafted and inadequate legislation.

John Heppell: No.

Cheryl Gillan: From a sedentary position, the Government Whip says, No, but there was absolutely no problem with the programming other than when he got a bit hot under the collar when we appeared to be debating at length matters that needed closer examination.
	We have tried at every stage to improve on hastily drafted and inadequate legislation. Indeed, so hastily drafted was it that the Minister herself accepted Opposition amendmentsas drafted and in principle, as shown by the Government amendments on the amendment paper todaybut at no stage was such extreme timetabling in the closing stages ever discussed. In fact, the opposite impression was given: if more time was required it would be given, although that is clearly not the case, as we see today.
	In Committee, we did not complete scrutiny of the Bill and all the proposed amendments, but despite that new clauses went undebated

John Heppell: We did.

Cheryl Gillan: Again, the Government Whip is interfering by speaking from a sedentary position. He can intervene if he can tell me that we completed scrutiny of all the new clauses at the end of consideration in Committee. We did not complete scrutiny of the new clauses.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend may recall that I tabled an extremely important new clause on the General Medical Council and the right to strike off doctors, but there was not time to debate it. That is illustrative of the pressures that we were under.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend makes a timely intervention to highlight a pattern that is repeated by the Government on so many occasions that they are too numerous to mention. I shall refer to that later. We did not complete the scrutiny of the Bill and today's debate will be truncated by the Government's programme motion.
	At the beginning of the debate on the programme motion, the Minister apologised. She did so because she has not been entirely fair and square with the Opposition on the Bill's passage. I need to ask her why I received her office's e-mail at 11.41 this morning. The e-mail says:
	I attach a copy of the letter to Cheryl which was signed in Caroline's absence regarding the Drugs Bill. It has been brought to my attention that due to an administration error it is possible that you did not receive this letter last week. It is vital that this is drawn to Cheryl's attention before Third Reading this afternoon.
	Well, that is an extraordinary letter to get from a Minister's office on the day of Report and Third Reading. Attached to it was an undated seven-page letter from the Minister, signed in her absence, which purports to deal with the issues raised in Committee.
	First, sending out that letter at the last minute is discourteous at the very least. Secondly, it would appear to be a way to avoid further debate, substantiated not least by the truncated timetable motion today.
	I refer once again to the admirable work of the Procedure Committee:
	For report stage and third reading, we recommend that the Government should table its amendments in good time and that the House should be provided with a factual statement of which clauses and schedules were not considered in committee because of the operation of the programme; and we believe that the House will usually want to spend most of the time available on report stage rather than third reading.
	Well, the amendments were not tabled in good time. In fact, I am not sure when they were tabled, but I was notified of them yesterday morning. E-mails were sent to my office last Thursday, which were inaccessible by me as Parliament was in recess and the parliamentary data and video network was down until Monday morning. Therefore the first notification that I received of those amendments was first thing on Monday morning. Given that those amendments were tabled so late in the day, and that the letter to which I referred was sent at the last minute, it is not possible to table further amendments on Report. Were I to wish to do so, the timetable motion would now prevent any possibility of their discussion.
	Matters arise from both the last-minute letter and the amendments tabled by the Government that need exploring. Let me give as an example those relating to clause 5. I had asked about the implications of the costs of the proposed X-rays and scans, and about whether they are paid for by the police or the national health service, which we know is very pressed at the moment. The Minister's responses in her letter deal with issues in relation to medical emergencies when people are arrested, but still do not deal specifically with situations envisaged in clause 5 in which a police officer decides that there is a reason to X-ray or scan an individual. How were we to know that the answers would be inadequate, as the information only arrived just before midday today?
	The timetable motion might also prevent us from reaching one of the most important amendments for which we would wish to arguethe proposed reclassification of cannabis in new clause 1. The Minister referred to that specifically in her opening speech on the programme motion debate. She was pleased that we voted on it in Committeewell, we voted on it, but we did not have an extensive debate. If she would like to refer to the Official Report of the Committee, she will see that there was a short, rushed debate, right at the end of the Committee. It was only because I stood up and asked how I could have a vote on the new clause that we managed to get one in right at the tail end of the Committee.
	We believe that the Government have made a grave mistake in reclassifying cannabis as a class C drug. Our concern has been that the reclassification will be a green light to young people, which is indeed the case. If young people are more likely to try cannabis, they are more likely to become involved in the drug sub-culture. We will reclassify cannabis back to class B, and would wish to have more time to deploy those arguments and discuss them with the Minister.
	This timetable inhibits debate on a subject which should be of great importance to every parent throughout the country. We know of its great importance, because although the Minister did not have time to answer questions posed properly during Committee several weeks ago until nearly midday today, she did, however, have time to send out a press release about the success of Operation Crackdown at 9.54 this morning. We therefore have a situation in which the Minister can do her press and publicity about Operation Crackdown, but she cannot be bothered to get the letter to the Opposition about points raised in Committee.
	I am pleased by the results that the police are achieving in tackling class A drugs, although I must admit that, on the basis of the statistics I have, I am not sure that they were worth a press release. I understand from the press release that 17 kg of heroin were captured by the police in the first four weeks of Operation Crackdown, but having looked at the statistics I discovered that in 1999

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must confine her remarks to the matters immediately before the House.

Cheryl Gillan: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The fact is, however, that the Minister is able to get press releases out and not leave time for them to be discussed, and was not capable of producing from her officethroughout the recessthe information that she had promised in Committee. I know she is sorry, I know she has apologised and I accept that apology, but it is still absolutely appalling.
	Let me end by returning to the Procedure Committee's excellent report, which made certain recommendations. For the sake of the Minister and those who support her, I should say that page 21 needs to be read carefully. At paragraph 13unlucky for somethe Committee said:
	We recommend that the Government should table its amendments for report stage in good time.
	At paragraph 15, it said:
	We believe that the House will usually want to spend most of the time available considering amendments on report, rather than debating third reading at length.
	We are left with a programme motion that ensures that the Third Reading debate will be longer than the debate on Report, which is directly contrary to the Committee's recommendations. That does not surprise me, however. Only yesterday, the remaining stages of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill did not complete their course here. The Prevention of Terrorism Bill is to be rushed through in two days, and because of a programme motion part 2 of the Civil Contingencies Bill was not discussed at all, although it involved serious constitutional issues. What hope have we for the Drugs Bill, which deals with a matter that is so important to families and communities up and down the land?
	This is a pattern with the current Government, who wish to stifle debate and, dare I say it, diminish the standing and powers of Parliament. No doubt the Drugs Bill will be added to the wonderful table in the Committee's report, table A on page Ev5. It gives a long catalogue of Bills in the 200203 Session parts of which were never reached and never discussed in the House.
	I invite my hon. Friends, and anyone else who cares to join me in the Lobby, to vote against the motion as a matter of principle. Once again the Government have been discourteous to the Opposition, have shown that they are not organised or competent, and have sought to stifle debate about something on which I believe Conservative policies are winning hearts and minds throughout the country. I think people believe that the Government have failed to act successfully on drugs.

Alistair Carmichael: Although it may not be apparent from the debate today, at the end of proceedings in Committee the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), thanked Members for the courtesy and good humour with which they had conducted those proceedings.
	We had ample time to explore the issues in Committee, and the Government deserve credit for that. As the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) has said, as a result of that exploration a number of amendments were accepted, either as they stood or in principle. The Government have returned the issues to the Floor of the House, and I give the Minister credit for that. However, I share many of the concerns of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. For the entire proceedings on Report to be given at most two hours is not adequate. To include in that two hours the debate on the programme motion means that we may have no more than one and a quarter hours for consideration of matters on Report.
	Matters on Report are important. If matters have been dealt with in Committee, that has been the preserve of a small number of Members. This is the opportunity for Back Benchers on both sides of the House who have concerns about the Bill to have their say. One hour and 15 minutes will not be sufficient for that.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to the correspondence from the Minister's office. I am quite happy to favour cock-up rather than conspiracy as far as that is concerned, but it highlights the danger of proceeding in the manner in which the Government wish us to proceed today with a highly timetabled debate.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said that we had protected time for Third Reading. That is not necessarily the case. If she looks at the motion, she will see that proceedings on Third Reading must be concluded three hours after the commencement of debate on the motion. Proceedings on Report must be concluded after two hours. If we were to have a vote after two hours, that would mean that Third Reading would not start until probably about 15 minutes into the one hour. At best, there will be 45 minutes available.

Cheryl Gillan: I accede to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I was referring to a previous Bill where there was no protection at all for Third Reading and the debate was completely lost.

Alistair Carmichael: We should be fortunate and have three quarters of an hour, if that is fortunate.
	A number of issues have come to mind as I have considered the Minister's correspondence this afternoon. On first reading, I thought that it was fairly innocuous. The more I read it, the more I think, Perhaps there is a point to be asked about here and a point to be asked about elsewhere. I hope that, when the Bill leaves the House, as I think it inevitably will tonight, and goes to the other place, the matters that we are not able to deal with today but that have been raised in correspondence from the Minister will get a fuller hearing and that there may be an opportunity for us to deal with those matters during consideration of Lords amendments.
	I was slightly surprised that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham was not able to get the Government amendments through PDVN, as I was. I am delighted that, for once, in a technological sense, things seem to be working better in Orkney and Shetland than in Chesham and Amersham.

Eric Forth: The  hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) was right to pick up the point that the Minister made briefly and rather weakly that, because matters have been considered in Committee, why should we delay ourselves much on the Floor of the Housethat was okay, was it not? That prompts a number of questions, one of which we need not discuss here: was the amount of time even in Committee adequate? My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) pointed out that his excellent new clause was not considered in Committee because of the Government's vicious timetabling of the Committee itself.
	In a sense, however, that is beside the point because the whole purpose of the Report stage, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is to give Members who did not have the privilege of being on the Committee the opportunity to consider what it did and to submit further amendments. Indeed, even the Government themselves now routinely table amendments on Report for consideration. Therefore, we should look at what we are expected to consider on the Floor of the House in the time allotted by the Government. We should notice that under these so-called timetable motions the Government are graciously allowing the House of Commons a certain amount of time to do its job of scrutinising the Government's legislation.

Cheryl Gillan: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He might want to consider that, first, the Minister was interrupted in mid-flow on a new clause in order for us to vote on the reclassification of cannabis; I have referred to the record in that regard. Secondly, does he agree that, given that part of the Bill refers to provisions in Northern Ireland and that no Northern Ireland Member served on the Committee, it is even more important that consideration on Report be allowed to run for some time, so that Northern Ireland Members can make points on behalf of their territory?

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend is of course correct. The point is that the Government are now deciding how much time they themselves will allow Members to do the job that they have been elected to do, which is to scrutinise the Government's legislation.
	Let us examine the specifics. There are five groups of amendments. They are not trivial and they cover some important and fundamental points. The first group deals with provision for schools and with children, and the second deals with dangerous driving. The third group concerns our old friendsubstituting shall for may. That always sounds trivial and innocuous, but it rarely is, because it is almost always of extreme importance. The fourth group deals with the role of the Secretary of State, which is also a matter on which we should dwell. The final group consists of new clause 1, which deals with, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the extremely important issue of the classification of cannabis.
	Any one of those groups could easily justify at least an hour's debate in the Houseif not several hoursbecause in theory several hundred Members might want to debate these matters, and they would be entitled to do so. Instead, the Government have said, You will be allowed a maximum of two hours to consider all these matters. That is 24 minutes per group, and if time is allowed for contributions from the Minister and other Front Benchers, there would probably be no time left for Back Benchers. That is the absurd situation in which we now find ourselves. The Government are saying that they do not think that Members need to bother turning up to debate these matters, because they do not think that time should be given to do that. That is the essence of the motion.

Crispin Blunt: Would my right hon. Friend care to reflect on the fact that although the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn)he is in his placehas special expertise in this area, he did not serve on the Committee, whereas two Back-Bench Government supporters from Scotland did, even though the Bill does not apply to Scotland? This point surely relates to precisely the argument that my right hon. Friend is making. Today constitutes an opportunity for experts in this House who have not yet had a chance to contribute to do so, yet the time available for debate will be limited to one hour. I am thinking in particular of Members who represent points of view on which Committee members received a great deal of advice. Despite that, no Committee member supported the case put forward by concerned lobby groups and members of the public.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important and interesting point on which I will allow myself to be drawn briefly. He is referring to the mysterious ways in which membership of Committees is decided by this Houseor, indeed, by the usual channels. The important point is that, sadly, it is therefore likely that members serving on Committees dealing with Bills such as this might not represent views generally held throughout the House. In particular, as my hon. Friend suggested, distinguished Members such as the hon. Member for Newport, Westhe is present now and smiling at me, and I am smiling at himhave a unique contribution to make. Today's debate should be an opportunity for such Members. It should not be time-limited by the Government.

Lady Hermon: The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) touched on a serious issue relating to Northern Ireland. I have a letter from the Northern Ireland Office confirming that permission has been sought and obtained for the extension to Northern Ireland of certain provisions in the Bill. However, the right hon. Member, who always reads legislation very carefully, will have noted that clause 24(6) makes it clear that the Bill
	extends to England and Wales only.
	That makes it even more unfortunate that more time has not been set aside this evening to discuss the extension of certain provisions to Northern Ireland.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who makes an important and different point about the extent to which the Bill covers Northern Ireland. We need to be aware that changes may be made to it even at this late stage. Sadly, as she says, it is doubtful whether we will have a further opportunity properly to explore the issue. The hon. Lady could be lucky if the Minister gives way to her when she winds up the debate; she might even have a brief and peremptory answer to her question. However, that is not the way in which we should conduct our affairs, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It should not be a matter of a nod and a wink here and a moment there. These matters deserve proper deliberation and consideration by Members of this House. The programme motion will simply not allow that.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) raised an issue that the Minister certainly must answer, and I believe that it should be answered during the course of her remarks this evening. Clauses 4 and 6 specifically relate to powers in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I raised in Committee a matter that the hon. Lady had mentioned about the nomenclature of police officers in Northern Ireland. If the qualifying clause at the end precludes the Bill's extension to Northern Ireland, it shows once again the poor drafting and haste with which the Bill has been knocked up, thrown together and slipped through the House.

Eric Forth: I suspect that the best opportunity for the hon. Member for North Down may be on Third Reading, when there may be a chance for the House to press the Minister on matters that are not necessarily covered by the selected groups of amendments on Report. Subject to your discretion and decision, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it may be appropriate to pursue the matter of Northern Ireland with the Minister on Third Reading. In my view, that would be entirely appropriate.
	Key issues in the Billincluding the selling of drugs to children, the impact of drugs on driving, the role of the Secretary of State and, not least, the classification of cannabisare of great substance and importance in their own right. Members who did not sit in Committeenot least, the hon. Member for Newport, Westshould now have their opportunity to contribute to the debate in the Chamber, but I suspect that none of that is going to happen. There will be no proper opportunity for debate and Members at large will have little chance to contribute. Sadly, that will once again make an absolute nonsense and a farce of the proper role of the House of Commons in scrutinising legislation.

Nicholas Winterton: Is it not appropriate for the Opposition, including Liberal Democrat as well as Conservative and Unionist Members, to make representations through the Minister to the Government to the effect that they should urgently review the programming procedures of the House to meet the perfectly reasonable deliberations and recommendations of the Procedure Committee? I believe that the Minister wants good legislation, but she will not get the best legislation if we proceed in this way.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend is characteristically more generous than I am, as I gain no sense that the Minister is anxious for any proper or detailed scrutiny of the Bill. In fact, I gain almost the opposite sensethat what we are being allowed to do today is almost too much for the Minister to bear and that she wants us to nod it all through so that she and her colleagues can get away as early as possible. That was my impression, but we may hear more from the Minister either on Report or on Third Reading about whether she is really enthusiastic, as my hon. Friend suggests, about allocating more time to debate the important issues in the House. I will believe it when I see it: that is all that I can say.
	I make no apology for that, as this system of so-called timetabling has confronted us time after time with the absurdity that we are not able to discharge fully and properly our responsibilities as Members of Parliament to scrutinise legislation. The system makes life easier for the Government and makes nonsense of our role. That saddens me.

Henry Bellingham: I had the pleasure of being a member of the Standing Committee considering this Bill, and I listened with great interest to the contributions that were made. I listened with special interest to what the Minister had to say in respect of a measure that is not particularly controversial. The Bill has received substantial all-party support, with the few exceptions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) alluded a moment ago.
	I do not understand what is going on. Why on earth is it necessary to apply a timetable motion to a Bill that has all-party support and which is not controversial? Furthermore, many hon. Members are extremely interested in the subject of drugs and know a great deal about it, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, only a few of them were fortunate enough to serve on the Committee. As a result, many hon. Members would like to contribute to the debate this evening and they might have hoped against hope for a debate on Report that was not timetabled. They will have been sorely disappointed when they saw the business of the House for this week, as it was clear that an extremely tight timetable would leave little chance for a constructive and positive contribution.

Lady Hermon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a particular problem in Northern Ireland? The Assembly there was suspended in October 2002, and this House alone has responsibility for the criminal law in Northern Ireland. Does not it therefore ill behove this Government to rush through legislation in an area as important as drugs control? I remind the House that cannabis use is the main drug problem in Northern Ireland, yet there is no time for proper discussion of the extension of the Bill's key provisions to Northern Ireland.

Henry Bellingham: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am indeed aware of what is happening in terms of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I was a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee early on in this Parliament. I am aware of the background, therefore, and the point that she makes is absolutely spot on. Given that the Assembly is suspended, surely the Government should be doubly cautious, sensitive and understanding when it comes to the needs of the Province. They should therefore ensure that proper time is given for a Bill of this nature, which is not controversial.
	In her excellent speech a moment ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham pointed out that several other Billsthe Civil Contingencies Bill and the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill, to name but twohave been subjected to the same timetabling tactics. Earlier in this Parliament, I belonged to the Standing Committee considering the Adoption and Children Bill, which was also uncontroversial and given all-party support. Many hon. Members were keen to ensure that this House produced good law that would endure and command respect. Laws like that are effective and can be upheld in the courts, but they cannot be achieved if the Government are always trying to rush them through the House.
	There is no good reason for the Government's determination to rush this Bill throughapart from the possibility that the Minister and her team just want to go back to their offices or their homes early. The Bill's Report and Third Reading should be considered over a prolonged period of time, as there are many additional points that need to be discussed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham pointed out that we made good progress in Standing Committee and that the Bill enjoyed all-party support. However, some aspects of it were not properly debated. We should have liked more time in Committee, but the Opposition co-operated with the Government as much as we possibly could. We went out of our way to be co-operative and responsible and, to the extent that it is possible for an Opposition to do so, to help the Government get the Bill through Committee. That is why I am appalled by the letter that my hon. Friend received from the Minister and the notification of the amendments. What is going on? We have just had 10 days off for half-term. Did the Home Office simply close down during that period? What were the Minister's civil servants doing? Why on earth could they not have contacted members of the Committee in good time, given us plenty of warning and behaved more imaginatively and proactively, which might have led to better legislation? What the Government are doing this afternoon is likely to lead to bad legislation and that is why I shall support my hon. Friend in the forthcoming Division.

Crispin Blunt: The way in which the Bill has been conducted is a great shame because much of the conduct in Committee was exemplary. The Minister considered points seriously, listened to concerns raised in the Committee and on one occasion accepted, unusually, an amendment tabled by the Opposition. The Committee tried seriously to improve a Bill that showed all the evidence of being drafted in a hurry. It is partly to the Government's credit and to the rather mysterious ways in which the Committee of Selection works that sitting behind the Minister were the hon. Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) who demonstrated considerable expert knowledge in debate. It was a shame that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) was not a member of the Committee, given his expertise and his contribution on Second Reading.
	During the Committee's deliberations, when we had a great deal of contact with people who were concerned about the change to the legislation covering magic mushrooms, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who was representing the Liberal Democrats, moved an amendment with which he did not agree to enable a debate to take place. The two issues in the Bill that raised the greatest public concern were the reclassification of cannabis and khat, and the classification of psilocybin-related drugs to group A, and they were dealt with during the Committee's final sitting. Those issues were of great public concern, but no one was genuinely advocating the interests of people who will be affected by the Bill, except academically and artificially, because no one on the Committee agreed with the point of view put forward by a number of concerned members of the public. Therefore, it is important to have sufficient time to discuss such issues when the Bill returns to the House on Report.

Alistair Carmichael: In the interest of accuracy, during an earlier intervention, the hon. Gentleman said that the Bill applies only to England and Wales. Under clause 24(7), clauses 1, 2 and 21 also apply to Scotland.

Crispin Blunt: The vast majority of the Bill is a matter for England and Wales and only a limited number of provisions, mainly covering repeals, apply to Scotland.
	When there is concern about such issues from public lobbies whose views are not over-represented in this Parliament, they deserve the opportunity to have their point of view taken into account. The Government may have an argument for programming if there is adequate pre-legislative scrutiny and an opportunity for interested lobby groups to make their case and to have meetings with hon. Members to ensure that their concerns have been properly taken into account. However, there is no case for this Bill to be rushed through when Transform, a drugs policy organisation, legitimately expresses its concerns about the Bill as follows:
	Its criminal justice focus appears to be motivated by election-time populism rather than evidence of effectiveness or the needs of the drugs field. The result is a series of reforms, most of which will be ineffective or actively counterproductive. They hold no prospect of addressing the very real issues around drug misuse and related offending in the UK.
	That is a proper line of criticism of the Bill.
	The measure has been put together in a great hurry and has more to do with appearance than substantive, considered changes to the law. Expert bodies and people with a particular interest in the Bill should have had the opportunity and time to consider it carefully. If that had been the case, they would not have said that there had been lack of consultation.

It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A (8)(Programme motions).
	The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 179.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	  
	Drugs Bill

As amended in the Committee, considered.

Clause 1
	  
	Aggravated supply of controlled drug

Caroline Flint: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 17, after 'committed', insert 'on or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 10.
	Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 18, after 'school', insert
	'or any other place where children frequently congregate'.
	Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'at a relevant time'.
	Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 3, at end insert
	'(4A)   In subsection (3) in the vicinity is
	(a)   within one mile of the school; or
	(b)   within five miles of the school when on a route known to be used by pupils accessing the school; or
	(c)   on a vehicle used by local education authorities to transport children to school.'.
	Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (5).
	Government amendments Nos. 11 to 18.

Caroline Flint: Clause 1 stipulates the circumstances that a court must treat as aggravating factors when considering the seriousness of the offence of supply of a controlled drug when the offence is committed by a person aged 18 or over. It will be an aggravating factor where the dealer uses a person under the age of 18 as a courier to deliver a controlled drug, or in a drug-related consideration, or where the offence of supply occurs on or in the vicinity of school premises during the relevant times.
	Recognising that schools are often used by young people outside conventional school hours, the clause establishes the relevant time as any time when the school is in use by a young person and one hour before or after that time. Because the clause focuses on protecting children at school, we have not included in its scope the supply of drugs at times when young people under 18 are not present at the school, but the clause would cover activities outside the normal school day and in the school holidays when young people are involved in an activity at the school.

John Robertson: I have great sympathy with amendment No. 4 because it is much more protective of the child than the wording of the Bill. Can my hon. Friend allay my fears, so that places such as clubs where young children are brought together are not seen as easy prey for the kind of person we are talking about?

Caroline Flint: The clause deals with the vicinity of a school. We are focusing on the school as a place in the community that is a visible and known building where young people assemble to attend school and for other legal purposes. We discussed in Committeeand I shall go into this furtherhow we might extend the provisions to other places where young people go, such as a cinema or a swimming pool. As I shall explain, part of the problem is how we define that, as it could be anywhere that children go.

John Robertson: The places that concern me particularly are sports clubs and sports centres, where there are large numbers of young people in an area that can also be attended by adults, some of whom might not be as nice as those looking after the children.

Caroline Flint: We recognise that drug-related activities can, unfortunately, take place at any time and anywhere in our communities. I share my hon. Friend's concern. It is important that the police and others work to make sure that, using local intelligence, they identify where those activities take place. There is already protection for young people, and account must be taken of aggravating factors such as dealing directly to vulnerable people. That includes people under 18. Dealers would be caught by that if they were dealing to young people in areas such as my hon. Friend mentioned.
	In the clause we are focusing on the school, which is a premises where children are expected to go by law. It is a visible building in the community which is known to be used by children. We are considering how we might best create a safe zone around it.

Several hon. Members: rose

Caroline Flint: I wish to make a little progress.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the Minister give way on that specific point?

Caroline Flint: I wish to deal further with some of the points that have been made, as this matter was dealt with extensively in Committee. I ask hon. Members to please bear with me.
	The Bill does not define what constitutes the vicinity of school premises, so it will be for the courts to make a determination on a case-by-case basis. I shall return to that point in relation to amendment No. 3. The clause will catch all school premises, including buildings, main and ancillary, playing fields and dormitory buildings. It will also encompass the use of school premises for community purposes, provided that a young person under 18 is participating in that use.
	In Committee, the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) gave the example of a community church using school premises and asked whether it would be caught by the provision. Initial advice suggested that the answer was no, but I sought further advice from parliamentary counsel, and they said yes. As far as I am concerned, on the basis of that second opinion, any activities taking place within what are defined as school premises will be caught by the clause as long as they involve under-18s.
	The courts may already take into account aggravating factors when considering the seriousness of an offence of supplying a controlled drug. The clause recognises public concern, particularly about aggravating circumstances in which children are exposed to risk, even if they are not directly involved in drug-dealing activities. We hope that the clause will provide a measure of reassurance to parents and a deterrent message to dealers, as well as offering protection to young people.

Alistair Carmichael: May I offer to the Minister the example of the school in my village that my children attend? As well as the school, there are various play facilities that are frequently used by children after hours. Presumably, given the terms of subsection (5)(a), a time when the children are playing there would constitute a time when the school is in use by persons under 18. Is she satisfied that that definition gives sufficient legal certainty, particularly given the fact that the provision extends to an hour before the start of such use? If there is no fixed start time, it will not be possible for a person to regulate their conduct according to the subsection.

Caroline Flint: I am convinced that the provision would apply to play activities of the sort that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. If hon. Members remember, we discussed in Committee the defence of not knowing that young people were present at any given time, and I accepted an Opposition amendment.
	It is necessary to recognise that the provision is about creating safer zones. Our intention is that, as far as is possible and practicalthere are issues about how far the areas can be extended, what is practical and how wide the range should bewe should protect young people, particularly when they are attending school but not exclusively, from exposure to drug dealing. It is therefore important that all premises should fall within the scope of that approach. I think that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) spoke about her own school, Cheltenham Ladies' CollegeI think that it was in relation to the cash issueand she pointed out that accommodation in boarding schools may be located on a different site from that of the school and asked whether such buildings would be covered. I sought additional advice as to whether ancillary school buildings such as accommodation provided by boarding schools and remote playing fieldswhen I was at school in London, we had quite a trek to our playing fieldsare caught by the clause. I am assured that they are.
	I have considered the point further, and I have taken the view that it is helpful, in order to avoid any doubt, to table an amendment. At the same time, it will also help to resolve any possible doubt about whether the provision catches over-18s who are dealing on such premises. Government amendments Nos. 9 to 11 and 17 mean that an aggravating factor that a court must take into account when deciding a serious drug supply offence will be the fact that the offence was committed on or in a facility, which is covered by Government amendment No. 9, and that it was committed at a relevant time, which is covered by Government amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
	It is always worth working through the different scenarios. It is possible that a teacher or caretaker might occupy solely as a dwelling, accommodation owned by the school, which is school premises, but which is not on or in the vicinity of other school premises. In an inner-city area, for example, a school might own accommodation that is not in the vicinity of the school or on the school plot itself. In recognising that such accommodation could be on the far side of town, our aim is to protect and provide a safe zone for children and young people, so that there is no need to catch premises used solely as a dwelling by a caretaker or teacher that are not on or in the vicinity of other school premises, although such a person might be defined as living in school premises. I hope that is clear.
	The basic idea is to draw a distinction between catching those people who have accommodation on a site where children actively go to school or engage in activities and a situation in which a caretaker lives 10 or five miles away from his job, but his accommodation is linked to the school.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister clarify once and for all whether clause 1 will apply to school premises in Northern Ireland? Clause 24 is ambiguous about whether some or all of the provisions will extend to Northern Ireland. Will she put on the record that every school premisesas she has explained this evening, school premises is widely definedincludes school premises in Northern Ireland?

Caroline Flint: I thank the hon. Lady for giving me an opportunity to set the record straight. I am pleased to say that clause 1 will apply to Northern Ireland, as will clauses 2, 4, 6, 8 and 21. Clauses 4 and 6 mirror clauses 3 and 5, so they have an identity in their own right. I agree that the wording of clause 24 is not as clear as we might all want, but sometimes we are all hostage to the legalistic wording used in such legislation. Many clauses amend existing legislation, and where the scope and range of that legislation applies to Northern Ireland, those changes will apply to Northern Ireland too. I reassure her that the measures in clause 1, which attempt to create safer zones around schools, will apply to Northern Ireland.

Lady Hermon: Earlier, I referred to a letter that I received from the Northern Ireland Office. I must apologise, because it was actually a written answer from the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who is responsible for this particular subject. On 24 January 2005, he stated:
	I have sought and obtained approval for the extension to Northern Ireland of the following provisions in the Drugs Bill.
	He listed several points, including the
	Creation of aggravating circumstances in which a dealer will face an enhanced sentencesuch as dealing near a school or using young persons as couriers.[Official Report, 25 January 2005; Vol. 430, c. 302W.]
	Given the clear import of that reply, will the Minister reflect on making it clear in the Bill that the provisions extend to Northern Ireland? The Police Service of Northern Ireland must apply those provisions, which are not clear.

Caroline Flint: Clauses 1 and 2 amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and therefore apply to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is not necessary to specify Northern Ireland because we are simply amending existing legislation, which already applies to Northern Ireland and Scotland. I hope that that makes it clear that Northern Ireland is not excluded from the provisions that deal with the vicinity of schools and the possible use of children and young people as couriers by drug peddlers and dealers. I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady and conveys a strong message to her local community.
	Let me be clear. Premises that are occupied solely by a teacher or a caretaker as a dwelling and are on or in the vicinity of other school premises that children and young people use would be caught by the measure. Government amendment No. 17 therefore defines school premises more closely and exempts from that definition land occupied solely as a dwelling by a person who is employed at the school. It is not unusual for buildings that are used solely as a dwelling by a member of staff to be distinguished in legislation from other school premises.
	Amendment No. 3 defines in the vicinity as
	(a) within one mile of the school; or . . . (b) within five miles of the school when on a route known to be used by pupils accessing the school; or . . . (c) on a vehicle used by local education authorities to transport children to school.
	The question of what constitutes in the vicinity was thoroughly aired in Committee and I have, perhaps rather belatedly, written to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham about the matter. I am concerned about the definition and I held extensive discussions about whether it was possible to include one in the Bill. After much discussion, I am worried that attempting a definition runs the risk of undermining our purpose. A definition could exclude a set of circumstances that may currently be difficult to foresee or a position that arises from local circumstances, which a court might want to include.

John Mann: I want to raise a point of clarity that was not made in Committee about definitions of vicinity, especially in view of Government amendment No. 9, in relation to school athletics and sports facilities that are used by adultsthrough community useand children, for example on a Saturday morning. Am I right that, if the measure were passed, this country would have the strongest anti-drugs-in-sport legislation anywhere in the western world? Anyone who dealt in performance-enhancing drugs on a sports field owned by a schoolthat applies to all athletics facilities and most rugby and football fields in my constituencywould be liable for conviction for aggravated supply. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary consider whether such a provision could eventually be extended to cover professional sports, such as those football teams that are playing tonight?

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend is right that the Bill covers sports activities that take place on school premisesplaying fields, sports halls or facilities that are open to community use. As long as young people who are under 18 are engaged in those activities, clause 1 will apply. My hon. Friend mentioned performance-enhancing drugs. If they were illegal, the clause would apply in the circumstances that he outlined. I shall draw his final point about other sporting activities to the attention of my hon. Friends in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

John Mann: My hon. Friend will recall that I was somewhat sceptical about the parental fear of drug dealing outside schools and I gave examples from my constituency. I believed that the Government risked falling into the trap of overplaying a fear that was simply that and not a reality. My hon. Friend will be pleased that I am convinced by her arguments about tackling drugs in sport. Will she consider how best to publicise this to the sporting world? The issue did not come up in Committee, but it could represent a significant change in dealing with drugs in sport.

Caroline Flint: I will think about the issue that my hon. Friend has raised. It will be important to make the provisions of the Bill well known, should it become law. That is an ongoing challenge for us, with regard not only to the new provisions but to the fact that record amounts of money are now being spent on all aspects of dealing with drugs, including prevention, treatment and building capacity. I know that my hon. Friend has played a huge role in this in his constituency, which I hope has been helped by the Government's determination to bear down locally on what can be achieved if people work together better to identify the problems and use the funds that we are providing to tackle them wisely. I will think about what he has said.
	I would also like to point out to my hon. Friend that a conference is being held this week on the positive futures scheme, which we in the Home Office are funding, as well as Sport England and others. The scheme identifies young people who are at risk of drug involvement or who have already become involved with drugs. It is a sports-based scheme, and 50,000 young people have gone through it so far, with tremendous results. An awareness of the dangers of drugsnot only heroin and crack cocaine but performance-enhancing drugsis an important part of the role of sports coaches, alongside providing brilliant sports coaching.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister is showing a great deal of concern for children by introducing this legislation, and we are now being led down the sporting route. She has also embarked on looking at what if scenarios. Will she clarify what would happen if children from a school were invited to play sport at a private sporting facility, for example, or a well-known football ground? If the children were going there as part of their school activities, would those premises be covered by the Bill? If not, why not? Why will the Minister not consider our amendment to make the clause apply to places where children congregate?

Caroline Flint: I am going to address that issue in a moment, but the short answer to the hon. Lady's question is that the provision would not apply to such facilities. The Bill covers school premises, and I have already attempted to explain what we understand by that term. The provision would capture the scenario that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) outlined, but it would not apply to that suggested by the hon. Lady. I shall explain later our views on places where young people congregate and on other places that have been mentioned, including community centres. We are trying to focus on what is practical and what we can actually deliver.
	What constitutes in the vicinity could vary from location to location. For example, a dealing site might be close to a schooland let us not forget that we are talking not only about someone dealing directly to young people, but about the exposure of young people to drug-related activities going on around them. An aggravating factor may already be taken into account by the courts during sentencing in cases involving dealing directly to a vulnerable person, including those under 18. These provisions are an attempt to tackle the problem of young people on school premises having to walk past or be exposed to dealing activities that might not directly involve them. This is about the risk of exposure, and the creation of safer zones around those areas.

Angela Watkinson: The clause relates to the supply of a controlled substance by a person who has attained the age of 18. However, it does not cover the supply of such a substance by someone who has not attained that age. We know that when pupils in schools have been tempted into drug use, it is common for them to sell on their surplus to their friends, thereby creating more and more people with a drug habit. Will the Minister tell us how the provision relates to people under the age of 18?

Caroline Flint: With the indulgence of the House, I will deal with that point, but I do not want to lose sight of the Opposition amendments. As the hon. Lady is aware, we had a discussion in Committee on that issue. We have to decide whether we accept that the law contains procedures that recognise how we might deal with under-18s in terms of sentencing, and how they are dealt with by different agencies, compared with over-18s.
	There are enough examples of how we try to deal with young offenders, but that does not mean that we excuse for one moment the activity of someone under 18 who might be supplying drugs. That will be an offence for whichif they are caught and there is evidencethey can be charged. We had a discussion on this in Committee, and I do not think that applying to someone who is himself identified in law as a vulnerable person the aggravating factor of supplying to a vulnerable person is the right approach to take.
	Do not forget that that is an aggravating factor linked to a charge for an offence. In dealing with under-18s, it is important that we charge them for the offence, but we should also consider what their involvement is and how they got involved. We should consider them as we do in other areas of lawin a way that understands that their actions are wrong, but at the same time they are young people, and perhaps even children. We need to deal with that appropriately. We have had that discussion, and although we may disagree, I think this is the right approach. So we are talking here about people over the age of 18 in respect of whom we believe such issues should be taken into account when they are involved in dealing activity.
	A dealing site may be close to a school as the crow flies, but might be separated from it by a railway line that is not bridged for some distance from the school, and may therefore, for practical purposes, not be in its vicinity. Conversely, a dealing site may be some distance from the school using conventional footpaths or roads, but be easily accessible by less conventional means. In my constituency, young people going to school do not necessarily follow the paved route. They cut across fields and parks, and that becomes their normal route to school. If someone wanted to be involved in dealing activity, they might choose such an area for that.
	Amendment No. 3, in attempting to define in the vicinity, illustrates the dangers of doing so. As I have said, distance may not always be the only determining factor. If we were to go for a fixed distance, from what point on the school premises would a mile be measured, and who would have the authority to carry out that measurement? How would passengers on a bus know when they were within 5 miles of a school? Furthermore, the amendment would catch only buses provided by an education authority, but not public transport used by pupils on their way to or from school.
	In addition, if there were active dealing on a school buswe might presume that, apart from the driver, most of the people on it were under 18, and it might be the driver who was dealingthat would be caught by the aggravating factor of dealing to vulnerable people, which means those under 18. We also know that young people use other forms of public transport, such as trains or buses, and children could be exposed to dealing activity from which we need to protect them near a local train station, which is the dropping-off point for those making their way to school, or on buses.
	We are talking about situations in which the young person is not directly engaged, but is exposed to the risk. We all want to try to deal with those situations, when young people experience those things around them. We need to consider how to ensure that they are seen as not acceptable and not a normal part of everyday life.

Paul Flynn: I am following my hon. Friend's argument carefully. We would all agree that we do not want our children or grandchildren to be exposed to drug pushing, but as she is referring to the vicinity of schools and colleges, the route to school for all children and the means of transport to school, it seems to me that this measure will cover an enormous area. Has she calculated the percentage of urban areas that the ban will cover? It strikes me that a very small area would be excluded from it.

Caroline Flint: Well, some Members might be quite happy about that. The facility will be linked to the issue of risk to young people and children. Rather than having carte blanche, the risk of young people being exposed would have to be set against the activity and where it was located. Because those issues are complex, we feel that that is a matter for the courts to decide. I will refer later to some other pieces of legislation in which in the vicinity is also used to provide coverage in a certain area.
	The way forward is to allow the courts discretion to decide what constitutes in the vicinity, not to remove that discretion as the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham suggests. Following the Committee stage, I sought further legal advice on the matter, and I am 100 per cent. certain that it is not sensible to provide further definition of the term in the Bill.
	As I said, there is legal precedent for that approach elsewhere. For example, the term is used in section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, under which a constable may give a direction to a person who is present outside or in the vicinity of someone's home if he reasonably believes that the person is there to represent something to the resident or another person or to persuade such a person to do or not to do something. I have experience of that in relation to animal rights extremists setting up a vigil outside someone's home. The police have used that direction widely, even when someone is not in the particular street or outside the person's home but has been there and in that vicinity previously.
	The term in the vicinity is also used in section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as inserted by section 94 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Section 60AA provides police with the power to require persons to remove disguises in certain places and under certain circumstances. Section 60AA(8) provides that a member of the British Transport police has those same powers in any locality in or in the vicinity of any police premises and in police premises themselves. We have done a search of case law to show that the term in the vicinity was used.
	It is right that we should indicate the intention behind the clause, and the Home Office will draw up, consult on and issue guidance indicating particular concerns in that regard. I would like guidance to indicate that distance from the school is the key but not necessarily the determinative factor, and that the practical accessibility of a location to young people is an important factor. The risk posed by drug dealing to young people when attending schools is a primary concern, premises such as cafs and private dwellings that are in the vicinity of schools could be covered, and other points in the vicinity of a school at which young people gather regularly, such as a bus stop on the way to or from school, are also a concern. As for whether a place is one at which young people gather, we should also consider informal routes that they may take to the school premises, which would include public footpaths and roads and, dare I say it, trespassing across private land. Transport used by schoolchildren should also be caught within the definition when such transport is in the vicinity of a school.

Lady Hermon: May I clarify, for my peace of mind, one point that bothers me? We are considering clause 1 on aggravated supply of controlled drugs. Is my interpretation of that clause correct that if a defendant is able to argue successfully that a location is not in the vicinity of school premises, that affects sentencing only? In view of the wide interpretation that the Minister has given, and her confirmation that it applies to Northern Ireland, for which I thank her, will she confirm that even if that argument is successful and a court does not hold that such a location is in the vicinity of school premises, it is still an offence for a defendant to supply controlled drugs?

Caroline Flint: Certainly it is still an offence for someone to supply controlled drugs. Such a person would be arrested and, I hope, charged with a drug offence, and it would be for the courts to take that into consideration as an aggravating factor, along the same lines as the aggravating factor of using children as couriers. The purpose is to focus the minds of those in our legal system on the importance of these issues, which should be reflected in sentencing. In Committee, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) raised the issue of transparency, and I have agreed to write to the Sentencing Guidelines Council about how aggravating factors apply to sentencing. I felt that he had made a fair point.
	Before issuing guidance my officials have already begun to consult Adfam, Turning Point, DrugScope, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Youth Justice Board. During initial discussions with a number of those bodies, none of them supported a definition of vicinity in the Bill; they felt that that should be covered by the guidance.
	As for amendment No. 4, I understand the desire to protect young people from dealers operating in the vicinity of places other than schools, but feel that there are real practical difficulties in establishing what constitutes such a place. What constitutes a congregation of young peoplethree or 30? Moreover, as I have said, the current sentencing guidelines list, among other aggravating factors, deliberately targeting vulnerable victims. I believe that that gives courts discretion to deal with young people appropriately.
	Unfortunately, as I said earlier, we live in a time when drug dealing can take place in any location where there are young people. The aim is to come up with a focused practical measure that can be enforced in a way that does not dilute what we are trying to do. That is why we have singled out schools for the purposes of this offence.
	Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 would require a court to identify an aggravating factor increasing the seriousness of an offence of supplying drugs when a person commits the offence in the vicinity of a school at any time. As we have acknowledged, schools are not the same as they were in our time, when the school day lasted from 9 am until 3.30 or 4 pm. I think we are all pleased that schools are now live buildings that operate outside the normal school day and are open to the wider community, and we have covered that in the Bill.
	Again, however, we do not want to dilute the aggravating factor. On occasion a school may be closed, with no one on the premises. To apply the aggravating factor when young people are not exposed would, in my view, undermine the clause. We should not forget that someone dealing in drugs outside a school at any time is liable to arrest and prosecution, but we do not think it appropriate for a court to apply the aggravating factor to those dealing at 2 am, when children are not using the premises. There must be a link with the risk of exposure.
	Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 go beyond the intention of the clause. Because the clause catches all who deal in the vicinity of schools, the amendments would establish an aggravating factor when an adult dealer supplied drugs to another adult in the vicinity of a school, even if he did so when the school was shut and no young persons were present and exposed to risk. We must not lose the focus of the clauses.
	As for Government amendment No. 12, clause 1 makes it an aggravating factorwhich a court must take into account when deciding the seriousness of a drug supply offenceto use a person under 18 as a courier. I know from what people have told me that there is concern about the use of children by adults wishing to avoid prosecution, and I think that that is terrible. We had a productive discussion in Committee, and I agreed with a number of points that were made.
	New section 4A(6) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which clause 1 inserts, provides that a person uses a courier in connection with an offence
	if he requests another person . . . to deliver a controlled drug to a third person
	or
	to deliver drug related cash to himself or a third person.
	In Committee the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland tabled an amendment that sought to strengthen the word requests, to make it clear that all acts of both commission and omission that a dealer might undertake in order for a young person to act as a courier were considered to be an aggravating factor. I acknowledged the merit of what the amendment was intended to achieve, and I hope that our amendment will achieve the same objective. It would replace requests with causes or permits, so that the clause would catch not just any positive act that a dealer might commit to force or persuade a young person to act as a courier, but a dealer who accepted an offer from a young person to act as a courier. In Committee, we discussed circumstances in which young people might wish to ingratiate themselves with, say, someone with a fast car, and might offer to be used in that way. This provision would capture that possibility, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter in Committee.
	On Government amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18, again, the Bill deals with young people under the age of 18 who are used as couriers. New section 4A, which is inserted by clause 1, provides that for this purpose, drug-related cash is cash obtained in connection with the supply of a controlled drug or intended to be used to obtain a controlled drug. New section 4A(8) defines cash as including inter alia notes and coins and any monetary instruments specified by order made by the Secretary of State.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, who tabled an amendment designed to have the effect of broadening the definition of cash to ensure that all possible forms of payment or reward for drugs received was caught. She argued that the definition in the Bill may not recognise the reality of the situation, because payments may be made, for example, in the form of consumer goods, CDs or clothes, as well as cash and monetary instruments. I acknowledged her argument and I hope that she will agree that we have come back with a suitable amendment to replace the term drug related cash with the term a drug related consideration. That is further defined by amendment No. 14 as
	a consideration of any description.
	We had a discussion about a consideration in Committee as well, and I have sought and obtained definitive legal advice. We are clear that it would not be appropriate to define the term consideration in the Bill. I understandas a lawyer, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will probably know better than methat it is a standard legal term that should properly be interpreted by the courts. It is used without definition in much other legislation, such as the Criminal Law Act 1967, the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. To attempt to define consideration would call into question some of those other pieces of primary legislation.
	Amendment No. 15 widens the definition of a drug related consideration to cover that which is intended to be used in connection with obtaining a controlled drug as well as that to be used to obtain a controlled drug. The detailed definition of cash in new section 4A(8) is therefore no longer required, and amendment No. 16 deletes it. The new section contains a power for the Secretary of State to make an order specifying monetary instruments that fall within the definition of cash. That is no longer needed, and amendment No. 18 deletes it.
	Amendment No. 13 and consequential amendments Nos. 14 and 15, 16 and 18 taken together have the effect of ensuring that all forms of payment or reward in exchange for drugs are covered by the clause. I commend the Government amendments to the House and I hope that on the basis of my explanation, Opposition Members will not press their amendments.

Cheryl Gillan: It is so good to see that the Minister has done her job properly on the first group of amendments on Report. The fact that, in order to do her job properly, she had to take more than two thirds of the entire time available for that group shows that she has been badly let down by her Whips Office. Again, we have lost valuable time for discussing this Bill. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) is laughing away. I in no way blame the Minister. She did a proper job on the first group. It is just that the Whips Office should have allowed more time and the Government should not be so keen to cut off debate in the House.

Alistair Carmichael: Shame on the hon. Lady.

Cheryl Gillan: It is a shame on the hon. Gentleman because I hope to leave at least some time for him to say a few words on the off-chance, but forgive me if I do not manage it.
	I welcome the Government amendments. We spent a lot of time on this clause in Committee because the Government made it a flagship clause. The Minister has admitted that there were some problems with its drafting. I find that extraordinary because the provision to make an aggravated offence for dealing around schools has been on the drawing board for some time. To have brought it to the House in such an imperfect form is extraordinary, but I admit that the amendments that she has tabled, which were stimulated by the debate on the Opposition Benches, will improve this part of the Bill no end.
	I am particularly pleased that the Minister has caught up with the 21st century and realised that her original drafting, which included the exchange of bankers' drafts and bearer bonds and bearer shares by dealers in and around a school, is not today's reality. Her reality check has brought her to use the words a drug related consideration. That is an excellent development that recognises that youngsters deal in and exchange many other things, from mobile phones and the new iPods, to cash or anything else that happens to be at hand. I must say that bearer bonds and bankers' drafts are used rarely.

Caroline Flint: I agree that their use is rare, but I remember that, in Committee, the hon. Lady thought that they were used at Cheltenham Ladies' College.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister ought to ask her colleague, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), about that. She was in my year at Cheltenham Ladies' College, and the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) was also at school with me. The Minister has two Cheltenham Ladies' College girls on her side of the House, whereas we have only one who has seen the light. We will exchange no further views on that.
	I thank the Minister for her letter of 17 February dealing with some points raised in Committee, which I did not receive until yesterday morning. Despite those comments to me at that late stage and her comments at length just now, the clause is still imperfect and certainly not strong enough. I want to consider the amendments that I tabled, which would widen and strengthen the clause. I hope that I will be able to press the House to a Division when the time comes, particularly on amendment No. 5, if not also amendment No. 6, because nothing that the Minister has so far said has led me to believe that my amendments will do anything other than strengthen this part of the Bill, which is what we have been seeking to do.
	Amendment No. 4 would widen the protection afforded to children where they congregate, or receive instruction or training. In her letter of 17 February concerning clause 1, the Minister said:
	I am advised that the clause does not include school premises which are in community use (eg a community church), even when the persons under the age of 18 are using the premises for such community purposes. This is because the term 'use' implies 'use as a school'. Children will be protected by this clause so long as they are using the school for some school-related purpose (eg., night class/drama rehearsal).
	That is not the comfort zone that I was seeking concerning the interpretation of this clause. It is my understanding that the Minister is actually saying that the aggravation factor will not apply if, for example, the children are at a school premises and attending a Sunday school.

Caroline Flint: I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. As I tried to explain earlier, I sought additional parliamentary counsel advice on this issue following that letter. I have subsequently made it clear that the provision would apply to the circumstances described earlier by one of her colleagues, but also to any activity taking place on school premises, whether or not it was organised by the school. Therefore, sports organised by other community-based clubs would be covered, as would a church service that is organised by a church, but which takes place within a school. I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful for that reassurance and I was anticipating that the Minister might intervene on me. That goes to show that even the information that the Minister and her office provided to the Opposition so late in the day was inaccurate and no attempt was made to correct it in the ensuing period. Information has been introduced at this late stage and the Opposition were not notified; in fact, the material provided to us was obviously inaccurate. I am pleased that she has explained the situation, which may lead me to withdraw amendment No. 4. Although the amendment is not perfectly drafted, its purpose is to widen the spirit of the clause.
	Examples have been one of the Minister's strong points and I would like to discuss another example, which I hope that she will be able to tell me will definitely fall within the ambit of the Bill. For example, I want to be able to protect children when they are in a learning environment that is not necessarily on school premises. The Minister confirmed earlier that, if children from a school were playing sports at a private club, they would not be covered by the Bill. In my constituency, some children are taken out of school and put into a completely separate learning environment from which they can benefit.
	I shall provide one example of a project designed to help children who are having a tough time in school and who respond to learning in a different way. I refer particularly to the Skids project in Buckinghamshire. It takes place away from school and the kids get to work with cars and bikes. The kids get to do what they want to do and they respond very well. I want some reassurance that, if anyone enters those premises to deal to those children, who may not have responded so well to normal school practices, the Bill will protect them. The Minister is looking puzzled

Caroline Flint: indicated dissent.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister could intervene to tell me that such children would be protected while attending such a project.

Caroline Flint: As I outlined in my earlier contribution, there are a whole host of places to which young people could be defined as going on a regular basis. We have tried to be practical about the matter and we acknowledge that a school is a known building in the community. In my constituency, projects are going on in all sorts of places and, from the outside, no one would be any the wiser that child-related or young persons' learning activities were taking place. The Bill would not apply in those circumstances, but it would apply to pupil referral units, for example.

Cheryl Gillan: That disappoints me. It may apply to pupil referral units, but when a group of vulnerable youngsters are in another learning environment outside the schooland they have been taken outside of school by the school itselfthey will not be covered. Once again, the issues have not been thought through.
	I want the Minister to respond, if she has time, to amendments Nos. 5 and 6 because they are designed to strengthen clause 1. She says that she wants to protect children and that clause 1 is all about protecting children, yet she places a whole series of provisos on that protection by using the phrase at a relevant time at the end of subsection (3) and by including in subsection (5), the phrases
	any time when a school is in use by persons under the age of 18
	and
	one hour before the start and one hour after the end of any such time.
	That effectively removes from the Bill's protection the very premises that attract children out of school hours.
	Many of our youngsters feel safe and secure in the environments in and around school premises. The Minister must know that, because she must have seen, as I have, children congregating in and around school premises long after the school has closed. That is the very timelate at nightwhen these children are most vulnerable and when the dealer will have greatest access to them. Dealers well know that children can be found in and around a set of premises with which they are familiar.
	Why on earth is the Minister cutting off her nose to spite her face over this matter? It would be simple to remove the term at a relevant time and remove subsection (5) so that the provisions would apply in, around or in the vicinity of school premises. I cannot understand why she is resisting and providing the dealers with a loophole. The dealers will find it easy to set up their places around schools at 11 o'clock at night, after they have shut down at 8 pm, yet they will not qualify for additional sentencing on grounds of aggravation under clause 1.
	I sincerely ask the Minister to reconsider my amendments Nos. 5 and 6, on which I hope we will be able to vote. The common sense of the amendments has attracted some interest from Labour Members because they realise that they are proposed sincerely to protect children in and around schools. I hope that, if we vote on the amendments, Labour Members will join us in the Lobby.
	Amendment No. 3 attempts to define the term vicinity, and I listened to what the Minister had to say. She quoted a lot from her 17 February letter, but I am no longer sure which parts of that letter are accurate, and about which she has sought further advice from parliamentary counsel. One part of the letter refers specifically to the matter addressed by amendment No. 3. She wrote:
	Where a school has residential accommodation which is not on the site where teaching takes place, then this will also be caught so long as it is not occupied solely as a dwelling by a person employed at the school.
	Why is that exemption made? If a school's caretaker were a drug dealer and lived in a nearby dwelling provided by the school, the drug deals are more than likely to happen at that dwelling.

Caroline Flint: That would be another consideration for the courts to take into account. A caretaker in the circumstances that the hon. Lady describesliving near the school and known to the studentswould be caught by the Bill, even if he dealt only to adults and not to young people. It has been brought to my attention that a caretaker's accommodation is not always near the school at which he works. As a result, the exposure of young people to the dwelling is not always apparent.

Cheryl Gillan: Once again, the Minister is not on the side of child protection but of the drug dealers. She has missed an opportunity with this clause. She has tried to be tough but she has failed. She is not tough geographically, because she has not sought to define what vicinity means in the context of a school

John Mann: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Cheryl Gillan: No, as I have nearly finished and I want to leave a little time for my hon. Friend from the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).
	The Minister has not drafted the clause widely as far as time is concerned. It is a half-hearted attempt to pay lip service to protecting children near schools. She has missed a great opportunity. I hope that we can divide on amendment No. 5, if not on amendment No. 6 as well.

Alistair Carmichael: I want to make a few brief remarks in the time that remains. Before that, I want to say that I agree with the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) about the timetabling of this part of our deliberations.
	As the Minister fairly said, the bulk of the Government amendments in this group had their genesis in amendments tabled by me or the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham in Committee. They are to be welcomed, and they greatly improve the Bill.
	I have some concerns about Government amendment No. 17. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham explored that very briefly earlier, but there are a number of school hostel premises in my constituency that are at some distance from the schools that they serve. However, there is often accommodationeither on the premises, or in the groundsfor a teacher or a janitor, or someone of that sort.

Caroline Flint: That would be covered, because the boundary around the accommodation for young people is taken into account and if the accommodation is on that site, the provision would apply.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful for that clarification. The matter is not as cut and dried as the Minister is suggesting, but we can deal with that on another occasion.
	Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 were tabled by Conservative Members and we anticipate a Division on them. They have some merit because the inclusion of a reference to time in addition to place leaves the provision open-ended and makes it difficult for citizens to regulate their conduct. For reasons other than those for which they were tabled, I would be minded to support the Conservatives if a Division were called.
	I accept the Government's reasoning concerning the definition of vicinity. It is sensible not to include a definition, but I wonder whether the third part of the Conservatives' amendment No. 3 relating to school transport is not consistent with the Government's approach, although not just vehicles, but many other modes of transport
	It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendment made: No. 10, in page 1, line 17, leave out a school and insert school premises.[Caroline Flint.]
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Amendment proposed: No. 5, in page 1, line 18, leave out at a relevant time.[Mrs. Gillan.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 273.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1
	  
	Aggravated supply of controlled drug

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 2, line 5, leave out 'a school is' and insert 'the school premises are'.
	No. 12, in page 2, line 9, leave out 'requests' and insert 'causes or permits'.
	No. 13, in page 2, line 12, leave out 'drug related cash' and insert 'a drug related consideration'.
	No. 14, in page 2, line 13, leave out
	'drug related cash is cash'
	and insert
	'a drug related consideration is a consideration of any description'.
	No. 15, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'to obtain' and insert 'in connection with obtaining'.
	No. 16, in page 2, leave out lines 18 to 25.
	No. 17, in page 2, line 25, at end insert
	'school premises means land used for the purposes of a school excluding any land occupied solely as a dwelling by a person employed at the school; and'.
	No. 18, in page 2, leave out lines 33 to 35. [Mr. Heppell.]

Clause 20
	  
	Anti-social behaviour orders: intervention Orders

Amendments made:
	No. 19, in page 20, line 8, after 'section', insert
	'made by the Secretary of State'.
	No. 20, in page 21, line 7, at end add
	'(2)   In section 114(2) of that Act (procedure for subordinate legislation) after 1A insert , 1G.'.[Mr. Heppell.]
	Order for Third Reading read.

Caroline Flint: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I understand the concerns that have been raised today but, overall, there has been a constructive approach to the Bill both on Second Reading and in Committee. I hope that I have responded positively in the areas that we have covered to many of the points made by hon. Members. I accept the role of scrutiny and the fact that other parties have something to offer, but it seems that, on the Bill's return to the House, the fact that I have listened is not welcomed. That is an important part of the process. The Bill is not, as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) suggested, badly drafted, but sometimes things are left out of Bills or require clarification. We have certainly tried to deal with that. The Bill is not the only representation of the Government's efforts to tackle the problems of drug abuse in our communities.

Alistair Carmichael: That is a relief.

Caroline Flint: It is important that we look at what we can do to augment our achievements. It is acknowledged that we have devolved considerable amounts of Government funding to the local level through drug action teams and by pooling different moneys available for prevention and treatment into a single young people's partnership fund. We have enhanced powers for testing on arrest and for mandatory assessment of people who have tested positive for class A drugs. Those are significant efforts to break the vicious circle in which people commit offences to feed their drug habit. I am pleased that the drug intervention programme is beginning to bite, as an increased number of people are taking up treatmenta process that the Bill's provisions will only enrich. There are 54 per cent. more people in treatment than there were a few years ago, which demonstrates how importantly we take this issue. Even though people think it is important, drug treatment is not always a popular issue. It takes many formsit is sometimes available in residential centres, but it must be supported within the community as well. We are committed to supporting and enhancing such initiatives. We are also building capacity, as we have not ceased in our ambition to grow the necessary treatment for people, whatever their age.
	We are also keen to educate young people about the dangers of drug abuse so that they do not become problematic drug misusers. I am not complacent, but I am pleased to say that the use of class A drugs, which increased enormously in the 1990s, has stabilised since 1998 after years of increased use by young people. There is evidence to suggest that there has even been a drop in the use of cannabis by young people. We are reducing the supply of drugs in the UK, and Operation Crackdown, which we announced today, is showing impressive results. It is implementing the powers that the Government introduced effectively to shut down premises that are used to encourage drug dealing and other activities that are a blight on communities. We have had tremendous success in the past year, with 150 crack houses shut down. Today we announced further results provided by the police forces engaged in this important work.

Cheryl Gillan: I appreciate the fact that in her busy day the Minister had time to issue the press release first thing this morning, but she did not have time to properly inform the Opposition about matters pertaining to the Bill. I question the success of the operation, as reported in the press release. It states that in the past four weeks the police seized 17 kg of heroin. I understand from the statistics that back in 1999 the police seized 1,500 kg of herointhat is, 160 kg in a month, so 17 kg is not that good. Likewise, the press release states that in the past month 413 people were charged with supplying class A drugs. Back in 1998, 7,230 people were chargeda rate of 605 a month. I am not sure that the statistics are as wonderful as the Minister trumpets them to be.

Caroline Flint: I shall have to look at the hon. Lady's reference sources. We are dealing here not with the whole picture, but with the specific campaign to focus on houses involved with drugs. That is where the police focus has been for the past four weeks. The results that we outlined today are due to that intervention. They do not account for all the other activities in which the police are involved, including the middle market drug units and the seizures taking place in other areas. The press release is designed to let people know about a particular campaign, which has been welcomed by police forces as a focus for their attention. It has also led to the seizure of firearms found at the same locations.

Lady Hermon: The Minister rightly pointed to the success of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which enables police forces in England and Wales to close down crack houses. May I draw to the hon. Lady's attention the fact that none of the 2003 Act extended to Northern Ireland? Will she give a commitment to look again at the needs of Northern Ireland in the absence of an Assembly? Given the activities of some bank robbers and those who are connected with them, it is highly unlikely that we will have our Assembly back in the near future. The issue is a serious one that must be dealt with by means of the legislation that goes through this House, so that commitment will be most welcome.

Caroline Flint: I will consider what the hon. Lady said and discuss with my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety and others the impact of the legislation on England and Wales and the effect of its not applying to Northern Ireland.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. The statistics that I obtained are taken partly from the information in the drug seizure and offender statistics, United Kingdom, 2001 and 2002, second edition. It is a Home Office statistical bulletin. May I ask the Minister where table 2.3 is in the statistical bulletin? That is the table that enables us to see what the police seize and what Customs seize, and it is missing from the Home Office's paper. I thought it was a mistake in my downloading, but the specific amount of drugs that were seized by each of those two operations is in table 2.3, which has been dropped from the paper. Will the Minister undertake to write to me, and will she provide us with the full details of how Operation Crackdown compares with the previous five years?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a Third Reading debate with a limited amount of time[Interruption.] Order. With limited time and three long interventions such as those that we have had, we may not make progress as we should.

Caroline Flint: I am mindful of what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall look at Hansard and reflect on what the hon. Lady said.
	The Bill builds on a strategy dealing with better enforcement in relation to supply and with how we might better engage young people, as well as get those who are addicted to drugs into treatment. That applies to those who are committing crimes, but our intervention in building capacity is also having a knock-on effect for those who are addicted to drugs but are not committing crimes. As I said, the Bill builds on that strategy.
	Several measures in parts 1 and 2 are a direct result of working with and listening to groups such as police forces from around the country and other organisations in respect of the need to have specific targeted powers to tackle the problems of street-level dealing of class A drugs. We had a wide-ranging discussion earlier about the vicinity of schools and part of a discussion about children being used as couriers, so I shall not expand any further on those issues.
	We are also giving police and courts additional powers to tackle drug dealers who swallow drugs or conceal them about their bodies, and we believe that the measures in the Bill will send a clear message to street-level drug dealers that it will be more difficult to hide evidence and escape prosecution where they have committed an offence.
	On the powers for testing on arrest and follow-up assessment, we have again learned from experience. While we were making inroads with those whom we were testing on charge, who would perhaps present themselves for voluntary assessment if they were found class A positive as a result of such a test, we felt that we wanted to tighten that procedure. That is why we believe that testing on arrest is important and that making the assessment following a positive test should be mandatory, rather than voluntary. Of course, that links to the other measures that we already have on bail conditions at court, as well as other provisions in the Bill allowing for police bail to take into account someone's co-operation in dealing with their drug misuse problem.
	Since antisocial behaviours were introduced, they have become a vital tool. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is obviously aware of that, and she would like to see them extended to Northern Ireland. The new civil intervention order that we are seeking to introduce will allow us to continue tackling the underlying causes of a person's antisocial behaviour. There is already provision for such an order to apply to young people with drugs problems who are involved in antisocial behaviour, but we felt that there was a gap in respect of some adults for whom there might be a problem.
	Clarifying the status of fresh magic mushrooms is an issue that we debated in Committee. The issue is not defining magic mushrooms as a harmful drug. They are a harmful and hallucinogenic drug on a par with LSD, but what we are trying to do is close a gap whereby some 400 outlets have developedI was going to say mushroomedin the past year. The outlets are selling the mushrooms fresh and not in a prepared state, thereby exploiting a loophole in the current law. We are closing down that avenue as well.
	The Bill adds to what we are already achieving. It is based on gaps that people have identified and experience of implementation of the law as it stands. I hope that it sends a strong message that illegal drugs are a blight on our communities and that they have to be tackled not only on an international and national level, but also on a community level. I believe that we now have the framework in place to tackle the issue on all fronts. I was involved with the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. The fact that the serious organised crime agency will have as its priorities drug and immigration crime will be an important contribution to this area, and through the Bill before us, we can further seek to deal with these problems in a real, practical and meaningful way.

Cheryl Gillan: I say to the Minister that I am not being curmudgeonly. I acknowledge that she has listened to what the Opposition had to say. As I said, we conducted the passage of the Bill in relative harmony until the past few hours, but we have rehearsed in the Chamber the problems with her administrative arrangements, and I am sure that she will try in future to do better.
	We have not however had time to discuss the Bill. For example, we have not had the opportunity today to discuss new clause 1, an important clause which indicates that the Conservative party would reclassify cannabis. I felt that it was important to discuss that subject in the context of the Bill, not least because yesterday's Daily Mail trumpeted the success of the Government's drugs policy in an article entitled, Cannabis sales bonanza:
	The supply of cannabis has turned into a boom industry since the drug was downgraded, it was claimed yesterday. Police have made several large seizures in the South East since it was reclassified from a Class B to a Class C drug in January last year. They believe criminals are trafficking huge quantities because they think law enforcement agencies 'have taken their eye off the ball'. Officers have been under orders to stop arresting adults for possessing cannabis, except in exceptional circumstances, and to let them off with a warning and confiscation instead. The idea was to give police more time to tackle the trade in hard drugs such as heroin. But Scotland Yard chiefs believe the switch has sent out the 'wrong message' to criminal gangs, who are now focusing their attention on the softer drug. 'One of the biggest growth areas in the shifting of organised crime towards cannabis importation,' a senior Yard source said yesterday. [Interruption.]
	The fact that the Whip is scoffing from the Front Bench shows that he does not think that the use of cannabis is a problem, which reflects the Government's attitude. Fortunately, that is not the Conservative party's attitude towards cannabis, and it is a shame that we were not able to have the discussion that we deserved on the Bill.
	Few problems facing our society today cause so much crime, misery, pain and the squandering of human talent as drug abuse and addiction, and one has only to examine the statistics for the prison population to see the evidence. More than 55 per cent. of convicted prisoners report committing offences connected with their drug taking, with the need for money to buy drugs being the most commonly cited factor. Shoplifting, burglary, vehicle crime and theft are all linked to drug misuse. Think of all the victims who are affected by drugs.
	At the same time, the number of people imprisoned for drugs offences is high and growing. Back in 1993, drugs offences accounted for 7 per cent. of male and 27 per cent. of female sentenced prisoners. By 2002, the percentages had grown to 16 per cent. of male and 40 per cent. of female sentenced prisoners. The criminal possession and use of firearms is rising, particularly in urban areas, and the price of drugs has dropped alarmingly. Drug trafficking continues to be highly profitable and attracts more and more recruits from street dealing to manufacturing and importing.
	The Government have offered up a very small and very thin Drugs Bill in the shadow of a general election. Why has it taken so long to introduce this particular Bill? I have a BBC news item from 21 May 2002, which stated:
	Drug dealers who target children at the school gate could face longer jail sentences under a new law being considered by the government.
	At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was shadow Education Secretary. He said that
	the government had clearly not thought the matter through and accused ministers of operating 'a media-driven stunt'
	Today, we can see that it was a media-driven stunt, because the Government have had two years in which to introduce the provisions around schools. They did not choose to do so, and now they have introduced the Bill, they have not offered the full protection that we expect.
	I am disappointed that the Under-Secretary would not accept amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I do not want to rehearse the arguments, but it is obvious that she is leaving loopholes in the measure. She has not drawn up clause 1 in a way that will protect our children adequately.
	The Bill is a missed opportunity. It has missed the opportunity to protect children wherever they congregate. The Under-Secretary has not protected even the most obvious places. On Report, she suggested that even a project to which schoolchildren are sent because they do not respond to teaching in school will fall outside the provisions. That means that vulnerable children will not be adequately protected in an educational environment. She has failed to grasp the opportunity to protect even youth clubs or other places where young people gather.
	The hon. Lady has failed to reclassify cannabis. She has spent a lot of money on telling people that it remains illegal, but the latest reports make it clear that cannabis use and importation are growing. She failed to reclassify even khat, which was raised in Committee.

Caroline Flint: The hon. Lady will remember that I said in Committee that I was concerned about khat and that I would refer the matter to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. We have two outstanding Home Office research projects that are examining khat. We are therefore mindful of the issue and I am asking the ACMD to consider khat as a classified drug.

Cheryl Gillan: I agree that the Under-Secretary said that she would consider the matter, but it is a little late. Introducing a Drugs Bill now and pushing it through so rapidly without taking advice on one of most obvious matters that was raised on Second Reading is unforgivable. Failing to consider reclassifying khat constitutes another missed opportunity.
	The Under-Secretary has missed the opportunity to increase residential rehabilitation and to encourage schools such as the Abbey school to introduce random drug testing.

Caroline Flint: The hon. Lady accuses me of missing an opportunity to increase the provision of residential rehabilitation as a form of treatment. We are putting a record amount of money into communities to develop drug treatment, which includes residential treatment. The issue is about not including a provision to increase residential treatment on the face of the Bill, but putting in the money to invest in the treatment so that it can be provided. The National Treatment Agency is considering that, too. Provision exists and we are increasing capacity. That does involves not a Bill but the Government's commitment to provide the resources to make things happen.

Cheryl Gillan: The Under-Secretary's words are hollow and I shall set out our intentions shortly. There has been a missed opportunity and her comments are mere bluff and sentences thrown out purely for media benefit, not long-term benefit.
	The Under-Secretary has missed the opportunity to set mandatory sentences for repeat drug offences by drug dealers. She has missed the opportunity to provide for automatic custodial sentences for those who deal to children. She has missed the opportunity to convince me that she has more plans for increasing the training and supply of suitably qualified drugs workers and assessors. We discussed that in Committee, and nothing she said will increase the qualifications and standards of people who treat drug users.
	The Government should make a clear statement about drugs. They should have welcomed my suggestions for strengthening the Bill's provisions for dealing with drugs. The Government's message has failed the clarity test on many occasions and it lacks urgency. If I am in charge of drugs policy after the election, we will convey a clear message to people about drugs. We will reclassify cannabis to end Labour's confusion and send a clear message that the drug is dangerous.We will ensure that the message gets across that drugs are dangerous and illegal, that they ruin lives and that people should not take them. We will also ensure that random drug testing is supported for schools, and we will certainly allow head teachers to have the final say on expulsions. We will also provide the resources to enable drug addicts who wish to get off drugs to take up residential rehabilitation, by massively expanding the number of places available above and beyond the 2,500 that exist at present.
	The Conservative party will make other announcements on these issues. In the meantime, I hope that when the Bill reaches the Lords, they will be able to strengthen its provisions and perhaps add to them. Rather than being a comprehensive attempt to tackle a growing problem, this is a Bill that has been slipped in to try to boost the illusion that the Government are taking action when, in fact, very little has occurred. It is basically a cynical electioneering platform. After the election, however, we will have the opportunity to put forward a well thought through, resourced programme of action to help the addicts who wish to reform, to punish the dealers who peddle misery and death, and to protect our children. That day cannot come soon enough.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said that the Bill represented a missed opportunity. In many ways, I agree with her. It will surprise few people, however, to learn that the opportunities that I would have wished the Government to seize are rather different from the ones identified by the hon. Lady as having been missed.
	I have found working on the Bill to be both an enjoyable and a frustrating experience. Our proceedings in Committee were remarkably good-natured and constructive, and in that regard, I give due credit to the Minister and to the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). I enjoyed working with them both, and we were able to improve the Bill. Credit for that must also go to those on the Conservative Front Bench. I found the experience frustrating, however, because we could have done so much more. This is a remarkably modest proposal, in the Swiftian sense of the term, and in some ways it risks doing damage, despite the good intentions behind it.
	Controlled drugs blight many of our communities. In my professional experience, I am aware of a number of fishing communities in the north-east of Scotland where such drugs have taken hold and destroyed otherwise highly coherent and strong communities. In my constituency, we often congratulate ourselves on our good quality of life, but we have also seen the growing presence of drugs. I am reassured to some extent, however, when I see a determination to tackle the problem, particularly in Shetland. I am thinking particularly of the dogs against drugs project, in which local people have rallied against the growing threat of class A drugs in their midst. I want to place on record, however, that it is unfortunate that some of the funding that could be made available to such projects has not been made availablein this case, from the Scottish Executive, who have been asked, and have hitherto refused, to make funds available from the money recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Stephen McCabe: You are part of the Scottish Executive.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman says that we are part of the Scottish Executive. He is very perceptive: I have never sought to deny that. However, the Liberal Democrats do not have to pretend that everything that we do in Government is correct. There is occasionally scope for improvement, and I would commend such an approach to Back-Bench Labour MPs, if any were in the Chamber to hear it.
	Others have observed that this is an election Bill. I drew that inevitable conclusion on Second Reading, and I am afraid that everything I have seen subsequently has served only to reinforce that view. We need something rather more comprehensive. Every 10 years or so, we have a revision of the Road Traffic Acts, but it is now more than 30 years since we had a comprehensive review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and such a review is long overdue. The best illustration of that came from our discussions on classification, particularly of psilocybin, or magic mushrooms. If we are to classify drugs according to their harm, the classifications A, B and C under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 manifestly are no longer sufficient.
	Instead, the Government propose revisions of the 1971 Act in clauses 1, 2 and 21. I feel that clause 1 is an exercise in window dressing that does not achieve a great deal. I was reinforced in my view when I read The Press and Journala publication that I commend to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham as being infinitely superior to The Daily Telegraphwhich reported on its front page of 29 January 2005, Sheriff Lashes Out At Cannabis Confusion.
	The Press and Journal reported a case from Aberdeen sheriff court, where the presiding sheriff was Sheriff Douglas Cusine, who in a previous incarnation as Professor Douglas Cusine was foolish enough to try to teach me conveyancing, but who otherwise is a man of blameless judgment and reputation. It will be of interest to the hon. Lady that the sheriff said that the reclassification of cannabis from B to C
	caused confusion in the minds of some.
	He went on:
	I myself have some difficulty in understanding precisely what message it is the Government was intending to convey because cannabis is no less dangerous than it was before and the penalties for being involved in cannabis are exactly the same.
	The case was brought against Craig Meldrum, who was sentenced to two months' detention in a young offenders institution for supplying cannabispresumably cannabis resinat Ellon academy in Aberdeenshire. Sheriff Cusine observed that drugs are the scourge of many schools and have to be tackled. He also said that supplying is serious, particularly when the targets are schoolchildren.
	I bring that matter to the attention of the House because here we have an example of a sheriff applying the law as it stands and giving a more serious sentencean aggravated sentencewhere the supply in question concerns children in school. In other words, the law as it exists operates quite adequately to protect against the mischief that the Minister seeks to remedy. That is why I say that so much in Bill is in many ways merely window dressing.
	I also have reservations about the operation of clause 2. Those were rehearsed on Second Reading and in Committee so I shall not go over them again, but I take issue with the claims made on behalf of the clause by the Minister in her letter to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, dated 22 February 2005, which has already been referred to. I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 5, where the Minister states:
	Nonetheless our view is that this clause is a sensible step to take. It has advantages in that (a) not all defendants will be able to successfully
	I apologise for the split infinitive, but I am quoting directly
	raise the issue.
	I am not quite sure why that is considered relevant. If it is perhaps being suggested that people who are not possessed of intent to supply will still be convicted I would have concerns.
	The letter goes on to say that the clause
	will send out a clear message to dealers whose current methods may well be disrupted
	I do not understand how the Government have reached that conclusion
	and (c) it will improve consistency as to when those in possession with drugs are charged with intent to supply.
	That in itself is absolutely fascinating, because, having been through all six Committee sittings and Second Reading, and having received more briefings on the Bill than I care to remember, I know that this is the first occasion on which anybody has suggested that there is a problem with clarity or consistency as to when
	those in possession with drugs are charged with intent to supply.
	Again, we seem to have a solution in search of a problem.
	The classification of magic mushrooms as a class A drug does not make ready sense to me. Putting them in class A, where they are on a parallel with heroin and cocaine, is difficult to justify and eloquently shows the inadequacy of the law as it stands.
	As I have said, there is no doubt that drugs are a growing menace in our society. However, little that has been done in the 33 years since the enactment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 seems to have been particularly effective. Nothing seems to have stopped the growing menace that permeates so many parts of our society. Drugs dealing seems to be a many-headed hydrafor every dealer who is removed, another three take his or her place. Surely this is a time to stop, take proper stock and proper consideration, and to ask whether things might be done better were much of this consideration removed from the political forum, which, notwithstanding the good nature of these proceedings, has been shown to be wholly inadequate to the task.
	I very much regret that not a lot in the Bill will make an awful lot of difference in the long run. I am not opposing the Bill; I just wish that the Government had introduced something that the House could have approved and supported rather more enthusiastically than I am able to do tonight.

Andrew Selous: No doubt like many other Members, I represent a constituency in which heroin use is quite a serious problem in the villages of south Bedfordshire and in the former market towns. Tonight, however, I want to speak about cannabis. The Government's declassification of cannabis from class B to C, and the consequences of that, is one of the actions of their term in office about which I am most upset and angry.
	About a year ago, I attended a mental health carers support group meeting in my constituency. About 12 people came to the meeting that evening, all of whom cared for sufferers of mental illness, mainly family members. Some eight or nine out of the 12, when they explained the situation of their son, daughter or partner, were absolutely clear that cannabis had been the cause of the mental illness from which they were suffering. I see the Minister shaking her head when I say that, but an increasing amount of research evidence also points to that, and the fact is that cannabis today is considerably stronger and more dangerous than that which was smoked many years ago.

Caroline Flint: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what evidence he has for his allegation that cannabis is stronger now than it was years ago? We take samples from police forces' seizures, which are examined by the Forensic Science Service and others, which show that the vast majority of cannabis used in this country is no stronger than it was 10 or 20 years ago.

Andrew Selous: The Minister will be aware that there is research that disputes that. She will have seen such research reports, but it is not the time, with a few minutes remaining, to go into that in great detail. The fact is that there is a considerable body of opinion that believes that cannabis is stronger now and causes mental health problems. It worries me massively that the Minister sits there shaking her head and denying it. I wish that she could have come with me to that mental health carers support group meeting and met the families caring for the people concerned.
	I shall tell the Minister about one more individual, and I would be grateful if she could listen to this story. A young man who came to see me with his mother about three weeks ago had been on the threshold of a very bright futurehe had been the head boy of his school and all set for a career in the armed servicesbut he is now completely in the hands of my local community health trust. He has a very serious mental health problem, which is desperately sad for him and a great source of worry to his family, and which consumes a considerable amount of public funds. I spent half an hour with his mother two weeks ago, and she is adamant that what switched her son's future from being bright and promising was falling in with the wrong crowd and taking cannabis. That is the mother's view.
	The Minister can sit there and shake her head, but I ask her to consider the feelings of the families involved. She asked me about the research evidence. According to reports I have seen, there is research evidence suggesting that cannabis is causing such problems. I know that many of her hon. Friends feel as strongly as I do about that.

Alistair Carmichael: Just about everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, including what he said about availability and increased strength, could equally be said of alcohol. Is he suggesting that we should prohibit alcohol?

Andrew Selous: What I am saying is that the declassification from B to C has sent entirely the wrong message. The hon. Gentleman will know as well as I doindeed, he said as much in his own speech, to which I listened with great interest, when he spoke about the sheriff in Aberdeenthat many people, including young people, who do not read the minutiae of the law gain the general impression from this place that cannabis is more generally acceptable than it has been.

Caroline Flint: Although cannabis has been reclassified, it is still an illegal drug, and our post-reclassification evaluation shows that 93 per cent. of young people recognise that. The hon. Gentleman should also acknowledge that there are different types of illegal drug. We have heroin, we have cocaine, we have amphetamines and we have cannabis. We should have a credible message for young people about recognising the different harms that those drugs causefor they all cause harmso that we can engage with them better about the consequences of using the various drugs, and explain how they can protect themselves. That is not to suggest that young people should take cannabis; they should not. We must send a credible message about the different drugs, howeverand amphetamines, heroin and crack cocaine could also exacerbate a mental illness.

Andrew Selous: Of course I accept that neither the Minister nor any other Member present wants to encourage young people to have contact with cannabis or any other drug, but that is not the impression that most young people have.

Cheryl Gillan: The Independent Drug Monitoring Unit estimates that we spend between 2 billion and 5 billion a year on cannabis. According to European Union figures, one in 10 British adults is using cannabis. I think that that justifies the points that my hon. Friend is making.

Andrew Selous: I am glad to hear that.
	I think that there is now confusion in the minds of the police, a point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). Let me give another example: that of a rather nasty divorce case, in which a departing father is turning a blind eye to his 17-year-old son's smoking of cannabis in the presence of his 11-year-old daughter. According to reports I have received, when the police have visited the premises they have been confused about exactly what powers they have and do not have as a result of the reclassification of cannabis. The Minister may be unhappy about that and say that it should not be the case, but it is a further example of what is happening on the ground.
	On the basis of the evidence on mental illness and the reaction and attitude of the police, I must tell the Minister that there is great confusion about the issue, and that she really should think again.

Caroline Flint: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	In the short time that I have left, I want to correct a few points. A point was made about articles in the press about a drugs surge following the change in the law relating to cannabis. I assure the House that I do not know which senior member of the squad expressed those views; it would be nice if that person could be named. What I do know is that those views do not reflect the view of the Metropolitan police or, for that matter, that of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which supports the policy of reclassification of cannabis.Since reclassification, an additional 199,000 police hours have been saved. I am quite happy when I hear of attempts by the police to run operations to identify and catch people who are supplying huge volumes of cannabis

Cheryl Gillan: Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint: No, I will not.
	I am happy about that because it shows that the police are diverting their activity to where it is most necessary: to the import and distribution of drugscannabis or any other drug. The people involved in the distribution of drugs deal not just with cannabis but with heroin and cocaine.
	In relation to mental health, there is no proven causal link between cannabis and mental health problems, but we recognise that people who have an underlying mental health issue and use drugs can exacerbate their problems. That is why we are working with mental health organisations to deal with that.
	The Bill is about providing more ways in which we can tackle the problems of drugs in our community through engaging with our young people by dealing with treatment and with supply. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together the Questions on motions 8, 9 and 10.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Gender Recognition

That the draft Gender Recognition (Approved Countries and Territories) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.

Employment And Training

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 10th January, be approved.

Pensions

That the draft Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Armed Forces and Reserve Forces Compensation Scheme) (Rights of Appeal) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together the Questions on motions 11 and 12.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1) (Consideration of draft regulatory reform orders),

Regulatory Reform

That the draft Regulatory Reform (Joint Nature Conservation Committee) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.
	That the draft Regulatory Reform (Trading Stamps) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)),
	That
	(1) the draft Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
	(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 8th March at half-past Two o'clock; and
	(3) at that sitting
	(a) the Committee shall take questions under Standing Order No. 110 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)); and shall then consider the instrument referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and
	(b) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

CHURCH SCHOOLS (DORSET)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Heppell.]

Robert Walter: The subject of the debate is of much interest in my constituency, particularly in the Blandford area. May I express my thanks to the Bishop of Salisbury, the Rt. Rev. David Stancliffe, who is a member of the other place, to his director of education for Salisbury diocese, Mr. Simon Tong, and to the director of education for Dorset county council, David Goddard, for their help in preparing me for this debate.
	Capital funding is applied to voluntary-aided schools via three routes. There is the devolved formula capital, which is allocated directly to schools by formula on an annual basis for their discretionary use on a range of capital items. That is typically about 25,000 for a primary school and 90,000 for a secondary school at current rates. There is then the more important local education authority co-ordinated voluntary-aided programme, known as LCVAP, which is allocated annually to local education authorities by formula and distributed by them and the dioceses for expenditure on agreed middle-range capital projects, usually up to about 400,000 each. There is a restricted number of projects annually under that programme. The third route is the targeted capital funding, which is allocated centrally against bids by the local education authority and the dioceses for major capital projects.
	The main capital baseline for voluntary-aided schools covers the LCVAP and the targeted capital funding. The devolved formula capital is funded in addition to those. That is a complex system that has, I am told, proved difficult for the Department for Education and Skills to control and monitor. The annual announcements have become increasingly erratic in their timing, often coming months after their scheduled dates.
	I am told that a point was reached in June last year at which no further funding could be allocated, a moratorium on targeted capital funding bids was called and the LCVAP allocations summarily reduced. Only the devolved formula capital continued unabated.
	That has caused great problems for the dioceses and indirectly for the local education authorities. For example, my own Salisbury diocese is owed some 200,000 by the Department for outstanding works at Verwood Trinity Church of England first school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I understand that liability is accepted but that payment has not yet been approved because of lack of money in the VA capital budget.
	Although that crisis has forced the setting up of a joint working group between the Department and the dioceses to create a more manageable system, and although the latest announcements by the Government indicate some cause for optimism, the current situation is extremely difficult. It will continue thus until greater clarity emerges.
	The Salisbury diocese, which covers my constituency, has so many Church schools that any local education authority initiative that is not matched by voluntary-aided funding could result in a disparity of provision, even within the same town or area. Until now, the main driver of improvements to the diocesan building stock has been the LCVAP, but the national allocation has been drastically reduced in the current year and beyond. In 200304, it was 210 million; for 200405, it is 108 million; and in 200506 it will be 80 million. In 200607 and 200708, the estimated allocation is 66 million. The LCVAP allocation for Church schools in Dorset is 0.6 million for 200506, 0.5 million for 200607 and 0.51 million for 200708. There were successful targeted capital funding bids in Dorset of 1.2 million in both 200304 and 200405, but no bids are allowed for 200506. It was only the diocese's ability to carry forward 1.1 million that enabled it even to look at any projects under the scheme. I understand that TCF bidding rounds will take place only every two years.
	There has been a major crisis at Beachcroft primary school in Weymouth, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight). However, he has made representations on this issue, so I do not want to dwell on it. Rather, I want to deal with the practical implications for major projects in my own constituency. Dorset local education authority is reorganising education in the Blandford area from three-tier to two-tier. That will incur significant building costs as first schools become primary schools.
	The diocese and the local education authority committed to this reorganisation in the expectation that TCF would be available to them, as it was in the previous year for the reorganisation of schools in the Shaftesbury pyramid, which is also in my constituency, and for the reorganisation of schools just across the border in west Wiltshire and Salisbury, which feed the Shaftesbury upper school. In that situation, the LCVAP could have covered the costs if the TCF had not been granted, but the 200405 bidding round was cancelled without warning, the LCVAP allocation was halved and a Church schools' private finance initiative was axed. There is currently no funding stream in place for these school improvements.
	The Archbishop Wake Church of England first school in Blandford needs some 2 million because it is moving site and taking over the premises of a former middle school. Blandford St. Mary first school needs 0.8 million, Durweston Church of England first school needs 0.5 million, and Spetisbury Hall and Slater's Church of England first school also needs 0.5 million. In summarising the situation in Blandford, I want to express my thanks to the head teachers of those four schools: Richard Chapman, of Archbishop Wake school, Judy Baker of Blandford St. Mary school, Neil Tarchetti of Durweston first school, and Sue Tipping of Spetisbury Hall and Slater's school.
	Those four voluntary-aided schools are preparing for the change from a three-tier to a two-tier system. The effect will be that they change from first schools to primary schools, so they will have an extra two year groups of children and will need the resources, equipment and buildings to accommodate them.
	The reorganisation was to be funded through the targeted capital funding moneyI mentioned it earlierfor which the diocese of Salisbury bids to the Department for Education and Skills. However, the bids to that fund have been stopped this year and the system is currently under review. As a group of schools, they entered into the reorganisation on the understanding that the required capital works, which are considerable, would commence in the academic year 200506. Work starting at this time is essential, because it is when the reorganisation takes place and the time at which this group of schools has to start providing a first-class education for the additional older children.
	Now that the funding has been withdrawn, the expected date for the completion of the work could be as late as 2008; without the targeted capital funding money, the diocese does not have the funds to carry out the work. That is particularly disturbing for a number of reasons. More than half the children in the Blandford pyramid are educated in voluntary-aided schools, and they will suffer from the lack of funding. As a pyramid of schools, they ensured complete unity and parity in the process up to now. The funding problem will prevent them from continuing in the same manner.
	The reorganisation appears to fit in with the Government's education policy, but the funding is not secure to carry it through. The lack of parity is made worse as the local education authority appears to have other ways to fund the required works for its schools. That means that the Church schools are disadvantaged when the LEA initiates a reorganisation, as it does not have a duty to the Church schools to see that it is carried through successfully. The Department for Education and Skills demands that LEAs remove surplus capacity, but what happens when 50 per cent. of the schools are actually voluntary-aided? The LEA has a duty to reduce surplus accommodation, but no responsibility to the voluntary-aided schools.
	I put these questions to the Minister. Why has this funding been reduced at a time when the Government claim that they are spending more on education? Where has the money gone? Why, when Dorset receives the lowest central Government grant of any English local education authority, is the problem compounded by the adverse treatment of the diocesan schools' budget? What hope can I give to my constituents?

Derek Twigg: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on securing this debate on such an important issue. It gives me an opportunity to remind all hon. Members of the record levels of investment that the Government are making in all our schools. The voluntary-aided schoolsthe category that most people think of as Church schoolsare receiving their fair and proportionate share of the investment. I appreciate that we have had to make some short-term adjustments to the balance in the various elements of that programme, and I will explain why in a moment.
	The capital programme for all voluntary-aided schools has increased from just above 100 million in 199697 to well over half a billion pounds this yearin fact, some 540 million. Voluntary-aided schools in Dorset are receiving their share of that money. Indeed, since 1997, the Department has approved major capital projects at voluntary-aided schools in Dorset with a total value in excess of 19 million.
	We are aware that there are plans in parts of Dorset that may need major investment. We are announcing this week the details of the next round of bidding for the associated funding. Officials are prepared to work with the local authority and the relevant dioceses to ensure a consistent approach and consistent outcomes. I am particularly concerned that the voluntary-aided sector should not be at a disadvantage in relation to other categories of school. That is why I am keen that we reach agreement on funding for the planned reorganisation in the Blandford area. I shall say more about that shortly.
	I should also set the particular issues in a wider context. The capital programme for all maintained schools has gone from a totally inadequate base of less than 700 million in 199697 to 5.5 billion in the coming year. That will rise to 6.3 billion in 200708. That is enabling us to begin a radical programme, Building Schools for the Future, to bring every secondary school in the country up to 21st-century standards. This programme will include all schools, including those that are voluntary-aided.
	I appreciate that it will be some time before Dorset schools benefit from the programme, but departmental officials are meeting local authority representatives early next month to discuss what we can do to help target the most pressing needs. More than a quarter of all local authorities are making a start with the programme now.
	This increased funding also has wider benefits. Support is being provided for a more diverse range of faith schools to become voluntary-aided. They include Muslim, Greek Orthodox, and Seventh Day Adventist schools. In addition, more than 3.5 million has been provided to support the first Montessori school proposed to join the state sector.
	On top of the 19 million, we have increased the amounts that we pay to individual voluntary-aided schools by way of devolved former capital grant. The amount going to schools in Dorset has increased from 419,000 in 200001, when the grant was introduced, to 1.6 million in the coming year.
	The money enables schools to decide their specific priorities for smaller-scale investment. A typical primary school will receive 34,000 in 200708, compared with 12,000 when the grant was introduced five years ago. A typical secondary school will get 113,000, compared with 35,000 in 200001. I shall say something in a minute about the improvements that we plan to make to the way in which we pay the grant to voluntary-aided schools.
	The hon. Member for North Dorset asked about another part of the capital programme for voluntary-aided schoolsthe local education authority co-ordinated voluntary aid programme, or LCVAP. The aim of LCVAP is to allow local decisions to be taken to prioritise need and ensure that locally agreed capital work is carried out. The sums are calculated by formula, and are normally used for medium-scale capital works, although bigger projects can be funded by spreading the costs over more than one year. The money is allocated to individual projects by partnerships between local authorities and voluntary-aided sector representatives. At present, the Department retains the money, which is then paid direct to schools.
	We are aware that the voluntary-aided sector prefers to manage and prioritise work through this programme. For a number of years, the level of LCVAP has increased significantly. In Dorset, the amount has risen from some 200,000 in 199697 to 1.8 million in 200304. However, pressures elsewhere in the voluntary-aided capital programme meant that although the total programme had been increasing, we had to reduce the LCVAP element from this year, to ensure that the total programme for the voluntary-aided sector was not overspent. We also had to stop approving new projects towards the end of last year.
	One of the pressures on the voluntary-aided schools capital programme has been the devolved formula capital. Schools are allowed to roll their entitlement for up to three years, but the annual nature of public sector funding meant that there were difficulties in carrying forward the corresponding amounts of money.
	The sector has already benefited from the money in other ways, of which extra funding through LCVAP is one, but the difficulties also coincided with the large backlog of commitments built up on the bigger projects approved in earlier years. That mainly resulted from progress on building works being slower than expectedbecause of unexpected increases in costs, the vagaries of the weather, or delays arising from local issues, such as securing appropriate planning permissions. A combination of those factors meant that, to ensure that we did not overspend, it became necessary to reduce LCVAP. That was the only option available to us.
	The sector has generally understood that we had to do something. To resolve the problem, we have allocated additional money to the voluntary-aided capital programme for 200607 onwards. For the coming year of 200506, we have had to retain the reduced level of LCVAP, but we have announced that there will be a minimum level of LCVAP for 200607 and 200708.
	We have established a voluntary-aided capital working group, with representatives from the stakeholders in the voluntary-aided sector. It now includes a representative from the Dorset local authority. At its meeting last week, the group confirmed its wish to see as much as possible being paid through LCVAP. In light of that discussion, officials are working out the details of how the voluntary-aided capital programme could be divided into various elements. We will announce the final programme to 200708 by the end of next month.
	I fully expect that we will be able to increase LCVAP very substantially. Not only does that demonstrate our investment, it shows that we value the views of our partners in helping us to get the right balance between formulaic and targeted capital programmes that will ensure that the sector's needs are met. We are also arranging a conference in March for the major stakeholders in voluntary-aided schools, to explain to them in detail how the voluntary-aided capital programme is formed, so that they understand the parameters within which we need to work. I am sure that it will be helpful to all those involved in the process.
	I understand that plans had been in place to use Dorset's share of the LCVAP programme to fund a planned reorganisation in Blandford, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Inevitably, considerable disappointment was felt when that could not proceed as planned. Although we had suggested alternative solutions to the problem, one of the options may no longer be available. It was to use funds from an existing project in Dorset that has not been able to progress for one of the reasons that I mentioned earlier. That money is not now available because there has been a fire at the school and some immediate funding is needed.
	It is therefore important that we work together to ensure that the best possible case is put forward, if it is still appropriate, for funding through our targeted capital funding route. Alternatively, those involved might think that the matter is better left until LCVAP funding is available again. That is why I have asked officials to work together with local stakeholders, as I mentioned earlier. I should also say that, as a general principle, we have also strengthened our internal processes to ensure that different outcomes do not arise for voluntary-aided schools if there is a clear link with decisions to be taken on other funding.
	I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman is made aware of the outcomes of the discussions that take place between officials and those representing the local authority and the diocese. I wish to make it clear again that I understand the concerns that he has expressed about the apparent reduction in capital funding for voluntary-aided schools in his constituency. He also mentioned that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) had made representations to colleagues in the Department about the funding in Dorset and the implications in his constituency. However, in the bigger picture, there is no reduction, but the money has, of necessity, had to be reallocated in different ways to meet the sector's needs. As I have just mentioned, however, we are putting in even more moneyanother 80 million over the two years 200607 and 200708to help to ensure that the problem does not arise again.
	The debate gives me the opportunity to remind the House that in 2002, the Government introduced a major reform of the basis for funding voluntary-aided schools through one of the first orders under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. We are building on that, together with the relevant stakeholders, and looking at the scope for simplification of the processes used to allocate and pay grant to those schools. Our aim will be to place as much responsibility for decision making and funding as possible where it should beat local level.
	For example, I mentioned earlier the devolved formula capital grant that all maintained schools receive. For the voluntary-aided sector we propose to pay that money directly to the individual schools, without the need for a claim. We are also looking at the possibility of paying all capital grant to the voluntary-aided sector in a way that is much more in line with that used for other types of schools, although that will not entail any changes to the underlying principles relating to the voluntary-aided sector. The very simple aims are to cut out any unnecessary bureaucracy in the processes and to ensure greater consistency of treatmentI am sure that we would all agree with that.
	I acknowledge the problems that have occurred. I hope that I have been able to assure the hon. Gentleman that we are aware of them and are trying to arrive at solutions that will benefit Blandford in particular and Dorset in general.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Nine o'clock.